United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. The position in this case is that the Appellant company has been put in the hands of an insolvency practitioner. In these circumstances the Chief Executive, Brian Constable, who has in the past had conduct of the matter, has indicated by letter dated 12 July 2001 that he will not be attending this preliminary hearing today. Accordingly, we have proceeded to consider the appeal on the papers.
2. The Applicant, Mr Pearson was employed by the company from 16 March 2000 until 8 May 2000 as both Football Manager and Commercial Manager of the club. Following his dismissal he presented a claim for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract to the Employment Tribunal.
3. Although the company entered a Notice of Appearance no one attended the Tribunal hearing held at Reading before a Chairman, Mr J G Hollow, sitting alone on 1 March 2001. The Chairman went on to hear the case, uphold the claims and award the Applicant compensation in the sum of £25,000.
4. Following that decision the company sought a review. The review hearing was held before the same Chairman on 20 April. The application was dismissed.
5. Mr Constable knew of the original hearing date but claimed to have been unable to attend because he had to appear before the local magistrates to obtain a Protection Order that morning. In fact, he was informed prior to that date that he need not attend the Magistrates Court. There was thus no good reason for his failure to attend the Tribunal. He told the Chairman at the review hearing that he did not attend because of other business commitments.
6. In this appeal, Mr Constable complains that the company did not have a fair trial. The original hearing proceeded in its absence. Had the company been present and called witnesses the outcome might have been different, as the Chairman observed at paragraph 14 of his review decision reasons.
7. We reject that contention. It seems to us, as it did to the Chairman, that there was nothing to prevent the company taking part in the original hearing on 1 March. The clash of court fixtures was resolved before the day of the hearing. If a party chooses not to take part he can hardly complain later that the result went against him.
8. In our judgment there are no grounds in law for interfering with either of the Employment Tribunal decisions in this case. The appeal is dismissed.