United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The position in this case is as follows.

1. The appellant, Miss Grant, commenced these proceedings complaining of unfair dismissal, breach of contract and sex discrimination against the respondent by an Originating Application presented to the Employment Tribunal on 18th December 1998.
2. The case was listed for hearing on three occasions, on two of which, on 17th May and 14th June 1999, the hearing date was vacated on her application.
3. The matter was relisted before an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 13th December 1999. On that occasion the appellant did not attend. According to a letter from her general practitioner dated 21st October 1999 she was suffering from depression. The tribunal proceeded to strike out the Originating Application by a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 22nd December 1999. Time for appealing against that decision expired on 1st February 2000.
4. On 16th February 2000 the appellant's solicitors lodged a Notice of Appeal with the EAT, coupled with an application for extension of time for appealing.
5. That application was considered by the Registrar on 6th April 2000. She dismissed it. Against that order the appellant appealed by letter dated 14th April 2000.
6. The respondents lodged a skeleton argument prepared by Counsel in anticipation of a hearing of that appeal on 20th June. The skeleton argument was lodged on 12th June. The following day, 13th June, the appellant's solicitors served notice of withdrawal of the appeal.
7. In these circumstances I shall dismiss the appeal.
8. By letter dated 16th June the respondents' solicitors applied for costs in this appeal, limited to the costs of instructing Counsel to prepare a skeleton argument. They seek an order for £500 costs.
9. The appellant's solicitors have asked for an adjournment of the costs application, which the Registrar directed to be heard on 20th June.
10. I regard that application as disproportionate to the issues involved in the costs application. I shall refuse it and consider the question of costs on paper as the respondents invite me to do.
11. It is true that the respondents were put to the expense of instructing Counsel to prepare a skeleton argument which could have been avoided by an earlier withdrawal of the appeal. However, I take into account that the appellant's solicitors were awaiting an opinion from Counsel for Legal Aid purposes. That unfavourable opinion was received on 7th June. The appellant's solicitors were then obliged to seek her instructions before withdrawing the appeal. By the time that those instructions were received the respondents had incurred the costs of instructing their own Counsel to prepare a skeleton argument. The appellant's solicitors acted promptly, having received her instructions, in serving notice of withdrawal.
12. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that this case falls within the ambit of Rule 34(1) of the EAT Rules. Consequently I shall make no order as to the costs in the appeal.