United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. By an Originating Application presented to the Employment Tribunal on 28 June 2000 the Applicant, Mr Rutter brought various claims against his former employer, Mr Ashfield, arising out of the termination of his employment as a driver following the Respondent's loss of a franchise to carry goods for Amtrak Express Parcels on 15 June 2000.
2. On 6 July 2000 the Respondent entered a Notice of Appearance. In answer to the question 'Do you intend to resist the application?' he ticked neither the Yes nor the No box, but added a note 'Please explain what the application is.'
3. The case was listed for hearing on 24 November 2000 before an Employment Tribunal sitting at Birmingham. Mr Rutter and a fellow driver Mr Furnival both attended. Mr Ashfield did not. The Employment Tribunal proceeded to hear both men's cases, dismissing Mr Furnival's claims against Mr Ashfield, but upholding Mr Rutter's complaints of wrongful dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment, awarding him total compensation of £4,481. The Employment Tribunal's decision with Extended Reasons was promulgated on 15 February 2001.
4. Against that decision, initially based on the Employment Tribunal's summary reasons, Mr Ashfield appealed. His grounds for appeal are that the Employment Tribunal's decision was made in his absence. He explains that the hearing was originally listed for 13 October 2000. At 5 pm the previous evening he was telephoned to be told that the hearing was cancelled.
5. Thereafter he received Notice that the hearing was relisted for 24 November. He applied for a postponement until the New Year; that application was refused. He believes that to have been unreasonable and unfair, although he did not then appeal the postponement order. It appears that he simply decided not to attend the hearing fixed for 24 November and in the event the Employment Tribunal proceeded with the cases in the way that we have indicated.
6. The Appeal has been listed for Preliminary Hearing before us today. We understand that on 15 June the Appellant Mr Ashfield telephoned the Employment Appeal Tribunal and indicated that he would not be able to make it to London for the hearing today.
7. In these circumstances, we have considered the appeal on the papers. It is incumbent upon parties to attend for Employment Tribunal hearings on the day directed, particularly in circumstances where an application for postponement has been refused.
8. We can see no grounds in law for interfering with the Employment Tribunal's decision on the basis that the hearing went ahead on 24 November in the absence of the Appellant notwithstanding his earlier application for a postponement.
9. That being the only basis on which the Appeal is advanced, we shall dismiss it at this stage.