British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Dovecrest Developments UK Ltd v Adams [2000] UKEAT 1425_99_1003 (10 March 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1425_99_1003.html
Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1425_99_1003
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE COLLINS CBE
MR P DAWSON OBE
MRS D M PALMER
DOVECREST DEVELOPMENTS UK LTD APPELLANT
MR J ADAMS RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
- This is an appeal against the decision of an employment tribunal sitting at Shrewsbury, their extended reasons having been promulgated on 19 October 1999. They decided that the appellants had made unauthorised deductions from the respondent's pay in the sum of £363.31 and made an award accordingly.
- The respondent had been given a cheque for that amount for work, which had been done and the appellants stopped the cheque. Shortly before the hearing the appellants telephoned the tribunal to say that the relevant director was out of the country and had been since 1 September. It is surprising that that information was given to the tribunal on 27 September because the notice giving the date of the hearing as 1 October had been despatched on 3 September. So the appellants had known for weeks that the hearing was on but did not apply until the last moment for an adjournment. The tribunal made enquiries of the respondent who said he had taken the day off work and accordingly they refused the adjournment. Nobody turned up at the hearing on behalf of the appellants, even though Miss Mollison sent the fax asking for an adjournment, appears to have been in the country and also appears to have known enough about the case to have given particulars to this tribunal of the Notice of Appeal. Nobody has appeared today to prosecute this appeal. There is nothing in the material which has been put before us to suggest that the tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion which it did. Accordingly the appeal will be dismissed.
| For the Appellant | |
| For the Respondent |
JUDGE COLLINS: