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 >> Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Matti [1996] UKEAT 1056_96_3009 (30 September 1996)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1056_96_3009.html
Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1056_96_3009
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS QC
MR A E R MANNERS
MRS T A MARSLAND
KWIK SAVE STORES LTD APPELLANT
MR M MATTI
RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellants | MR N VICKERY (of Counsel) Bullivan Jones & Co State House 22 Dale Street Liverpool L2 4UR |
| For the Respondent | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT |
JUDGE J HICKS QC: There is an application pending before the Industrial Tribunal at London (South) by Mr Matti against Kwik Save Stores Ltd, his employer. The notice of application simply complains of unfair dismissal.
It appears that one of the issues may be whether an internal appellate procedure was either not pursued at all or was departed from, but although further and better particulars of the Applicant's case had been ordered they were not due until today and have not yet been received.
In those circumstances, but more particularly because of the fact that on that basis a crucial witness will be the manager who conducted the appellate procedure and that he will be in hospital on the date fixed for the hearing, Wednesday of this week, 2 October, the employers applied to the Industrial Tribunal for a postponement or adjournment. That was refused, as was a repetition of that application, and the employers appeal against that refusal.
It is material that, certainly before us - we are not entirely clear whether formally this was the case before the Chairman who decided the matter - the Applicant Mr Matti, the Respondent to this appeal, supports the appeal, or at least certainly consents to it and is perfectly willing for the adjournment to take place.
The difficulty we have is that by reason of the haste with which matters have come before us we have not in front of us, nor has Mr Vickery who appears for the Appellants, the letter by which the Appellants applied to the Industrial Tribunal for the adjournment, and therefore it is rather difficult to say how the Tribunal erred in law whether by reason of not taking into account relevant matters or by reason of perversity since we do not know on what basis the matter came before it. But the matter is urgent. There is a hearing on Wednesday. The Respondent to the appeal consents to it and in all the circumstances we feel that the only way of doing justice by ensuring that there is not a premature hearing is to allow the appeal, and we accordingly do so and direct that the hearing fixed for Wednesday be vacated.