United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER BEING PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED
For the Respondent	THE RESPONDENT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This was supposed to be a hearing of an appeal brought by a Mr Maddison against the unanimous decision of a tribunal sitting at London (South) which concluded that as a result of the claim by the applicant and the cross-claim by the respondent, the applicant should pay the respondent the sum of £464.99 for the reasons set out in their decision.

This Court granted Mr Maddison leave to continue the appeal to a full hearing. Today was the date which was allocated for this hearing. Mr Maddison has not appeared at all. We have had no word from him.

As a result of enquiries which our office have made, it would appear that he has relatively recently vacated the premises which we have recorded as his address, but we are aware that he has been to solicitors, Messrs Thomas & Co., and we, as result of enquiries made, are satisfied that Messrs Thomas & Co. are aware of this date, but we are not fully satisfied that the hearing date has been communicated to Mr Maddison. It may be that it was and it may be that he was of the view that there should be no appearance pending Messrs Thomas & Co.'s application for Legal Aid on his behalf, which we understand they are progressing. As we see the picture, Messrs Thomas & Co. do not have instructions to act on Mr Maddison's behalf and will only act on his behalf if and when he obtains Legal Aid.

Mr Stenning, the respondent to the appeal, is here today, and has come here fully equipped to deal with what he understood to be the appeal. He has urged on us that we should determine this appeal now and dismiss it, having regard to the fact that Mr Maddison must have been aware of the hearing date.

We are reluctant to accede to that submission, although we are sympathetic to the position in which Mr Stenning now finds himself. It seems to us, that the justice of the case requires that this matter be postponed for a period of time, so as to give Mr Maddison the opportunity of appearing or not appearing at the appeal. We think that that will reflect the justice of the case rather than us seeking to dispose of it in Mr Maddison's absence. As we say, we are not fully sure as to why he has not appeared before us today.

But we also take the view that unless there was a satisfactory reason which Mr Maddison has for his non-appearance today and for his failure to inform the Employment Appeal Tribunal of his non-appearance, he should be required to pay Mr Stenning's costs of attending here today.

Accordingly, the purpose of this short judgment is to cause a note to be left on our file indicating that this Court is minded to make an order that Mr Maddison pay Mr Stenning's costs of his attendance here today, but that order will not perfected until after Mr Maddison has been given an opportunity at the adjourned hearing of making representations to us on that issue.

As to the date of the resumed hearing, Mr Stenning is in the chauffeur hire business. We understand from him, and accept, that it is seasonal in nature, and that the prime season for his business are the Summer months. It would in the circumstances, we think, be quite unjust to have a resumed hearing date in the middle of his busy season, and he has generously suggested that October would be not inconvenient to him. I say generously suggested, his original idea was that January was the least busy month, but was willing to accommodate our desire that the matter should come on slightly earlier than that.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter come back into the list not before 1st October 1997, but it should come back into the list as soon as possible thereafter in order to accommodate Mr Stenning's wishes in this respect which we consider to be reasonable. On this basis the matter will be adjourned.