United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1065_94_0705

Appeal No. EAT/1065/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 7 May 1996

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MS S R CORBY

MR A D SCOTT

---

SAFEWAY STORES PLC          APPELLANTS

MR M HOPPER          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCES OR

REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF EITHER PARTY

For the Respondent


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Safeway Stores Plc against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London North on 19 July 1994. Extended Reasons for the majority decision were sent to the parties on 20 September 1994.

The majority decision was that the complaint of unfair dismissal by Mr Hopper against Safeways should succeed. The case was adjourned for a date to be arranged for the Tribunal to determine remedy. Safeways appealed against the decision. Their Notice of Appeal was served on 31 October 1994.

On 4 July 1995 the Solicitors for Safeways wrote to the Tribunal saying that the parties had reached a settlement and that Safeways would therefore no longer be proceeding with their appeal.

In accordance with the practice of this Tribunal, a letter was then sent to the Solicitors acting for Mr Hopper, asking whether he consented to, or opposed, the application. He might, for example, oppose on the basis that the settlement had not made provision for his costs. Unfortunately, there was no reply to that letter.

A further letter was sent on 23 October 1995, enclosing copy of the earlier letter to which no response had been received and asking those Solicitors to let this Tribunal know whether the withdrawal of the appeal was opposed or not. There was no reply to that letter.

A final reminder was sent on 9 April. It was stated there that the matter would be listed for disposal, as there was still no response. A letter has been sent by Safeways Solicitors, dated 17 April, saying that they do not intend to be present at the hearing today.

In those circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that the proper way to deal with this appeal is to dismiss it, on it being withdrawn. It appears from the lack of response from Mr Hopper's Solicitors that there are no grounds on which he opposes this course.

The appeal is dismissed.