United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 903_93_0703

Appeal No. EAT/903/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 7 March 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MRS M E SUTHERLAND

---

WOODFORD PARK LANDSCAPES LTD          APPELLANTS

MR R T TAYLOR, MR J BOON AND MR J GOOSTREY          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY           APPELLANTS

For the Respondents NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY           RESPONDENTS


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on 27 August 1993. For Full Reasons notified to the parties on 20 September 1993 the Tribunal unanimously decided that the respondent company Woodford Park Landscapes Ltd had made deductions in contravention of Wages Act 1986 from the three wages of the applicants: Mr Taylor, Mr Boon and Mr Goostrey. They were ordered to pay the sums that had been deducted. They were also ordered to pay redundancy payments to each of the employees.

Woodford Park Landscapes Ltd appealed against that decision by Notice of Appeal served on 1 November 1993. The position today is that nobody has attended the hearing of the appeal. Woodford Park Landscapes Ltd is in liquidation. This point drawn to the attention of the Tribunal by the solicitors, Eversheds Alexander Tatham, who formerly acted for them.

Nobody has attended on behalf of the respondents, but a letter has been sent by the Citizens Advice Bureau at Macclesfield informing the Tribunal of the current position. The current position is that, on the liquidation of the company, the employees made an application to the redundancy fund for payment for the sums awarded to them at the Manchester Industrial Tribunal. Those payments have now been made. In those circumstances they do not intend to attend or be represented at today's hearing. It is clear, though it is not said in terms in the letter, they would be quite happy to have the appeal dismissed. We shall dismiss the appeal for two reasons. First, the Appellants have not given any indication that they are pursuing the appeal. Secondly, having read the papers, we have reached the conclusion that the appeal does not in any event disclose an arguable point of law. In those circumstances the only order we make is that the appeal is dismissed.