United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


MR RECORDER LUBA QC

1. The first case in our list morning is an Appeal by Mr Neil Anderson from a decision promulgated by the Employment Tribunal in London Central. Mr Anderson appeals against the decision by which the Tribunal held that an employee of his was entitled to unpaid wages in the sum of £6,346 net. That employee was Mr D Mee.
2. The Notice of Appeal submitted by Mr Anderson was considered by a judge of this Tribunal, His Honour Judge McMullen who made an order dated 22 January 2003 fixing this appeal for consideration at a Preliminary Hearing. The notice of the Judge's order was, we find, sent to Mr Anderson and set out certain steps he was to take in relation to the filing of bundles, skeleton arguments and authorities for this hearing which is listed before us today. He has not complied with those directions.
3. The office of the Employment Appeal Tribunal sent him a reminder that he was required to comply with the directions, to which he did not respond. Further, having already given notice of the date and time of this hearing, the Employment Appeal Tribunal office again wrote to Mr Anderson indicating the date by which papers should be lodged and the fact that he was to indicate whether or not he was attending.
4. This case has been called before us this morning in the 10.30 list. It is now 10.45 and no-one has appeared. In those circumstances we have decided to exercise our discretion to proceed in the absence of the Appellant. We have considered the original documentation on file in this appeal in particular the Notice of Appeal set out in Mr Anderson's letter of 25 November 2002. In that Notice of Appeal he takes four points. First, that the Tribunal was wrong to allow his employee an extension of time within which to submit a claim for unpaid wages. Nothing in that complaint made in the Notice of Appeal amounts in our view to an arguable point of law. We therefore dismiss it.
5. The second point taken in the Notice of Appeal relates to the finding of the Tribunal that Mr Mee was an employee of Mr Anderson. That is a finding that the Tribunal made on the facts. Nothing in the Notice of Appeal suggests to us that it is arguable that the Tribunal erred in law and we dismiss that ground of appeal also.
6. The third ground of appeal relates to some personal possessions, being certain belongings of Mr Anderson. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to that matter, did not consider it and nothing under that heading in the Notice of Appeal amounts to an arguable ground of appeal. The fourth ground of appeal purports to relate to the quantum of the award made by the Employment Tribunal. Again, nothing in the material in that part of the Notice of Appeal discloses an arguable error of law on the part of the Tribunal.
7. Having regard to the fact Mr Anderson has had full notice but does not appear today and did not comply with the directions given by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, we find that it is satisfactory to determine this appeal here and now. Having found no arguable error of law to have been identified by the Notice of Appeal, we accordingly dismiss it.