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 >> Ladd & Anor v Loughlin [1998] UKEAT 757_98_0110 (1 October 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/757_98_0110.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 757_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 757_98_0110
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR K M HACK JP
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
MR M LADD & MRS S LADD APPELLANT
MR M D LOUGHLIN RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellants | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): On 22 October 1998 Mr and Mrs Ladd informed us that they would not be attending this hearing because the Respondent company had ceased trading and was bankrupt, and they indicate that the relevant documentation relating to this appeal and regarding this case has been given to the Official Receiver. We shall nonetheless have to deal with this appeal, as it stands, as we do not understand from their letter that they are wishing to withdraw their appeal.
The appeal relates to a decision by an Industrial Tribunal to provide extended reasons for its refusal of a review of an earlier decision made by it on 12 February 1998. That earlier decision had concluded that the Appellants had unfairly dismissed Mr Loughlin and he was awarded £730.55 compensation.
The reason why extended reasons were not provided was because the application for extended reasons was made later than the 21 day time limit period. But it seems to us that the Industrial Tribunal had a discretion as to whether to provide extended reasons, and we consider that they were entitled to take the view they did, because there is no error of law in the way in which they have exercised a wide discretion.
The background does not need to be stated, save to note that the Appellants had requested an adjournment of the unfair dismissal case on the grounds of Mr Ladd's ill-health. This application was refused because it was considered that Mrs Ladd could conduct the hearing in his place. They appealed that decision, but did not attend either the appeal or the substantive hearing and then requested a review of the decision.
It seems to us that Mr and Mrs Ladd (with great respect to them) do not have any justifiable grievance about the decisions which have been made in this case by the Industrial Tribunal and accordingly, we are satisfied that there is no arguable point of law in their Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Tribunal and we dismiss the appeal.