United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Neither present nor represented


 


MRS JUSTICE SMITH: This is an appeal from the decision of a Chairman of an Industrial Tribunal at Birmingham on 9 September 1997 whereby he directed that the Respondents, Neural Net Ltd and Neural Net (UK) Ltd jointly or severally should pay the Applicant £757.38.

The Respondent to this appeal Mr Virdee had complained of unlawful deduction of wages. He was employed by Neural Net Ltd until his dismissal on 28 April 1997. The Chairman found that at the date of termination, Neural Net Ltd owed him £730.70 wages, plus £26.68 travelling expenses. These sums were due for the last two weeks the Respondent had worked.

Soon after the termination of the employment, a company called Neural Net (UK) Ltd began operating in a similar way from the same premises with many of the same staff as had formerly been employed by Neural Net Ltd. On 12 January 1997 the Respondent filed an Originating Application claiming unlawful deduction of wages from Neural Net Ltd of 4 Cambridge Terrace, St James Road, Brackley, NN13 7XY. On 7 July 1997, the personnel and recruitment manager of Neural Net (UK) Ltd wrote to the Respondent saying that they accepted liability for the money owing. In its IT3, completed on behalf of Neural Net (UK) Ltd of the same address as that alleged to have been occupied by Neural Net Ltd, the Appellant claimed that Neural Net Ltd had gone into insolvency on 5 August 1997. They claimed that no money was owed by Neural Net (UK) Ltd, which was the only company left in existence.

At the hearing before the Chairman there was no appearance by either Appellant and the Chairman found that Neural Net (UK) Ltd was in effect a phoenix operation having taken over the business of Neural Net Ltd. He found that there had been a transfer of the original company as a going concern, with its debts liabilities and assets, to the new company and he therefore made a joint and several order against both companies, leaving the two companies to sort out who was going to pay the Respondent.

There followed an application for a review by Neural Net (UK) Ltd who claimed that they had been unaware of the hearing and they wished to be heard. The request made in the name of Neural Net (UK) Ltd came from a fax machine in the name of Neural Net Ltd. The notice of review hearing was sent to an address in Milton Keynes given in the fax as being that of Neural Net (UK) Ltd. On the review hearing, there was no appearance by either company. The review application was dismissed and a decision sent to the parties in March 1998.

Neural Net (UK) Ltd then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 26 March 1998. They claimed that they had not received notice of the hearing date for the review. They were then ordered to file an affidavit describing the procedural irregularities alleged in the Notice of Appeal. However they failed to do so in the time allowed. Further, they failed to respond to letters dated 25 May, 15 June and 26 June sent by the E.A.T. to the address in Milton Keynes. They were then given a final chance to file an affidavit within 14 days from 2 July 1998. No affidavit was filed.

Because all the allegations in the Notice of Appeal were of alleged procedural irregularity, the failure to file an affidavit in support of those allegations rendered the Notice of Appeal ineffective. The Registrar struck out the allegation of procedural irregularity on 23 July 1998.

We have checked the file to ensure that the notices and letters were indeed sent to the appropriate address. We now formally dismiss this appeal.