United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED
For the Respondent	NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: On 24 June 1999 Mrs Martin's appeal against the Registrar's order for refusing an extension of time for appealing against the Chairman's refusal to supply Extended Reasons was dismissed.

1. The judgment of the President concluded that there was no sensible argument to be advanced in support of the appeal but because Mrs Martin, the Appellant, was not present, I said as follows:

"I take the view, having regard to the figures with which I have been provided that I should assess the costs in the sum of £150.00. I order that amount of costs rather than ordering them to be taxed, because, it seems to me, that that is the most expeditious way of dealing with this matter.

Because Mrs Martin is not here, that order will take effect within 14 days, unless within that period a written application with reasons is made as to why such an order should not be made. Such an application will then be considered and any further directions, if needs be, given. If no such application is made within the 14 day period then the order will take effect at that time."

2. Thereafter, Mrs Martin applied for leave to appeal and that was refused. She also suggested that it would be appropriate for the EAT to review its refusal of her appeal and I can indicate that that application is without merit and must be dismissed. In addition to that, within the 14 day period she wrote to the EAT saying:

"the costs of £150 should not be paid.

The home is only a small five bedded one and this is not viable as yet and I would have great difficulty paying that amount."

She has not appeared, as is her right, today though she has been notified that at this hearing it will be decided whether the order for costs should be made final or whether any further directions need to be given.

3. I am satisfied, on the information available to me, and in the exercise of my discretion, that the order for costs should be made final. I have arrived at that conclusion having regard in particular to the letter from the solicitors to Mrs Haines, the Respondent, which sets out in some detail their submissions on the question of costs. They point out that the Appellant has had the benefit of solicitors acting for her and there was no excuse for them not putting in a Notice of Appeal within time. They point out that the Appellant has shown no reason why the Court was wrong to view her appeal as being empty and not standing any reasonable prospect of success. They point out that although the Residential Care Home to which the Appellant is referring is one that was taken over from a previous manager of the Home, the Appellant had given no substantive reasons as to why she considers the Home not to be viable, and in any event, they submit that the amount of £150 could not be described as likely to cause financial hardship to the Appellant without any further information.
4. Accordingly, we were invited to dismiss this application and I do so. It seems to me clear that Mrs Martin has not provided any sensible reason why the order for costs should not be made against her in the sum previously fixed. This was a bad case in my judgment of timewasting and I am satisfied that an order for costs in these circumstances is appropriate.