United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 993_94_1701

Appeal No. EAT/993/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 17 January 1995

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

HOWARD FRAPWELL INSURANCE & MORTGAGE           APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT & FINANCIAL ADVISERS LTD

MISS C WRAY          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR C SCHOFIELD

Solicitor

Messrs Tetley Asher & Co

Solicitors

Premier House

3rd Floor

14 Cross Burgess Street

Sheffield

S1 2HG


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: We have listed for hearing an ex-parte application for leave to appeal by Howard Frapwell Insurance & Mortgage Independent & Financial Advisers Ltd ("the Company") in proceedings brought by Miss C Wray. As I deliver this judgment no one is present to represent the proposed Appellants.

The facts behind this appeal set out shortly are as follows. The Applicant below, Miss Carol Wray, was in the employ of the Company which was in a small way of business providing financial services dealing with mortgages. Her "partner" was also an employee of the Company. A time came when her partner decided to leave the Company and go into competition and on 28 February 1994 left its employ.

The Company was worried about whether confidential information would be passed on by the employee to the partner's new competing business by Miss Wray and she was first of all suspended and later, dismissed from her employment. She brought proceedings for unfair dismissal in the Industrial Tribunal. There was a hearing on 27 June 1994, when the Company was represented by Mr Christopher Schofield of Ferensway Legal Services.

The Tribunal unanimously held that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed and declared that she was entitled to the sum of £709.71 holiday pay, unlawfully deducted from her wages. Notice of Appeal was served against that order dated 1 October 1994 and notice was given by the Tribunal for a preliminary hearing on 14 December. That, was adjourned to today. Mr Schofield who was the adviser for the Company appeared below, appeared at this court shortly after 10.39 this morning, and told us that the notice of the preliminary hearing had only been received by him or the Appellants on 4 January. He therefore asked for an adjournment.

All of us had pre-read these papers and had taken the view that Mr Schofield was going to have some difficulties in persuading us that the Tribunal's decision was in fact wrong. Mr Schofield said to us that it was hoped if there was a postponement, that there might be some form of settlement with Miss Wray. In these circumstances he sought an adjournment.

We felt that on 4 January 1995, if notification had been received that there was a hearing today, that left ample time for the Appellants and its advisers to prepare for this hearing, the more so if Mr Schofield who had appeared below, was to make this application.

Mr Schofield said he wanted counsel to appear on the ex-parte application. Again, if papers were received on 4 January, plenty of time has elapsed for counsel to have been briefed for today's hearing.

In the circumstances, we did adjourn the case from this morning to come on, as soon as we were free to hear it, after lunch. At 2 o'clock we were free to hear it but unfortunately, Mr Schofield, who knew that we had adjourned until after lunch, did not appear. We waited 15 minutes but Mr Schofield still had not appeared. As I finish this judgment the clock shows it to be 2.22 pm, and Mr Schofield has still not appeared.

In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal.