United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Dr Shah makes an application by way of appeal to this Court in the following circumstances. As long ago as 9 September 1996 Mr Alan Paul Millins made a complaint to an Industrial Tribunal of unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The grounds of complaint said, inter alia, that he had been employed by Southern Relief Services from 28 October 1979 to 20 July 1996. At the date of his dismissal he was employed as a Systems Manager with responsibility for company computers and software, communications and the provision of statistical information to official bodies.

Among the particulars which he gave for saying his dismissal was unfair, were these:

(i) On the 10th July 1996 Southern Relief Services Limited went into Receivership. Messrs Coopers & Lybrand were instructed as the Insolvency Practitioners.

(ii) On the same day Southern Relief Service was purchased, as a going concern, by Doctor A.A.Shah. [Particulars are given.]

We understand that notice of his complaint, was addressed to Dr Shah, was given to Dr Shah.

There was a hearing of Mr Millins' complaint on 8 January 1997. The Industrial Tribunal's decision was promulgated as long ago as 21 January 1997, when an award was made to Mr Millins to be paid by Dr Shah.

An appeal was received from Dr Shah on 7 October 1997 which was heard by a panel headed by the President. The Order dated 20 March 1998 was as follows:

"UPON the Appellant neither being present nor represented

AND UPON the Appeal having been set down for an ex parte preliminary hearing pursuant to the New Procedure Listing Direction

AND UPON due consideration of the papers received

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal be adjourned to a date to be fixed."

The grounds of appeal were contained in a document written by Dr |Shah, which was received here on 20 January which states as the first paragraph "I do not accept that I should be a Respondent at all" and it gives a chronology of facts.

There had been an application for a review of the Industrial Tribunal's decision made by Dr Shah and that was refused on 7 October 1997. The reason for which it was refused is that the Tribunal held that it was clear on the record that Dr Shah had had notice of the hearing scheduled for 8 January 1997 and had not attended it. In those circumstances the order in favour of the Applicant was properly made. There was correspondence subsequent to this, but that does not change the initial position, that an Industrial Tribunal heard in Dr Shah's absence, the complaint made against him and considered there were proper grounds for the Order to be made. No doubt it considered the IT3. If Dr Shah chose not to attend that hearing for whatever reason, or to seek an adjournment, he has only himself to blame. The award made to Mr Millins should have been paid to him many months ago.

We see no point of law arising on this appeal against an Order made by an Industrial Tribunal a long time ago, which was properly made. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal at this stage.