Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> London Crane Hire Ltd v Hards [1995] UKEAT 907_92_1207 (12 July 1995)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/907_92_1207.html
Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 907_92_1207
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MR J R CROSBY
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF EITHER PARTY
For the Respondents
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) as long ago as 19 June 1992. The Tribunal notified their decision to the parties on 12 August 1992. For the full reasons stated in their decision, they unanimously decided that the Respondents, London Crane Hire Ltd, had unfairly dismissed the Applicant, Mr G R Hards, contrary to the provisions of the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978. The Tribunal ordered London Crane Hire to pay Mr Hards the sum of £3,780 as compensation for unfair dismissal.
On 30 October 1992, London Crane Hire served a Notice of Appeal against that decision. In the grounds of appeal they claimed that there were errors of law in the decision. They also complained that they had been refused an application for a review of the decision against them on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success. It is unnecessary to investigate the grounds of appeal because the company is in liquidation. On 21 October 1993 a letter was sent to the Tribunal informing the Tribunal that the appeal would not be pursued on behalf of London Crane Hire Ltd. The delay since then has arisen from the difficulties of obtaining clarification from Mr Hards as to whether he consents to the appeal being withdrawn. It is normally necessary to seek the Respondent's consent, because issues may arise in relation to costs incurred in an appeal which is subsequently withdrawn, either on the ground that it had no prospects of succeeding or on some other ground.
The position is that Mr Hards has been contacted and informed of the situation. He has confirmed that he consents to the withdrawal of the appeal. He has notified the Tribunal that he does not intend to appear at the hearing today. For all those reasons this appeal is dismissed.