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 >> Santamarina Tesouro v Stakis Casinos Ltd [1998] UKEAT 172_98_2206 (22 June 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/172_98_2206.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 172_98_2206
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR K M HACK JP
MR J R SANTAMARINA TESOURO APPELLANT
STAKIS CASINOS LTD RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/ RESPONDENTS |
| For the Respondents |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant, Mr Tesouro, was employed by the Respondent initially as a waiter at their Cardiff casino on 30 March 1997. On 6 July 1997 he resigned his employment. On 6 October he presented an Originating Application to the Industrial Tribunal making various claims of unauthorised deductions from his wages. The material complaint relates to a meal allowance of £33 per month which he said he was not paid throughout the employment but to which he was contractually entitled. He claimed a total of £99 under this head of the complaint.
By a Notice of Appearance dated 28 October, the Respondent agreed that no meal allowance was paid to the Appellant or any casino staff and denied that he was entitled to such payment.
The matter came before a Chairman, Mr John Thomas, sitting alone at Cardiff on 26 November 1997. The Chairman dismissed the meal allowance claim for the reasons more particularly set out in paragraph 5 of his Extended Reasons dated 5 December 1997.
By a Notice of Appeal dated 13 January 1998, the Appellant appealed against that part of the Tribunal decision dismissing the meal allowance claim. The matter came before a division of the Appeal Tribunal, Judge Byrt QC presiding, on a preliminary hearing on 4 March 1998. The Appellant did not appear and was not represented on that occasion. The appeal was nevertheless allowed to proceed to a full hearing.
The full appeal was listed for today. Nothing had been heard from the Appellant since lodging his Notice of Appeal. On 11 June the Registrar wrote to him, informing that the matter would be set down for disposal on the President's direction due to lack of contact from the Appellant.
He has not attended today. Nor has he submitted written representations in support of the appeal, nor has he provided any explanation for his inactivity. It is incumbent upon Appellants to pursue their appeals; if not they will be dismissed. That is the Order we make in this appeal.