BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, 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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Adler v Calvy (t/a Touching Thought) [1993] UKEAT 213_91_0411 (4 November 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/213_91_0411.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 213_91_0411, [1993] UKEAT 213_91_411 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KNOX
MR R JACKSON
MISS D WHITTINGHAM
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON
BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT
For the Respondents NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON
BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS
MR JUSTICE KNOX: This is an appeal by Samantha Jane Adler from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London North on 5 March 1991 and sent to the parties on 8 March 1991 to the effect that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear Miss Adler's complaint of unfair dismissal.
The point of lack of jurisdiction arose from the lack of 2 year's continuous employment that the Industrial Tribunal found that she had and that in turn was based on a claim by the Respondent, Mr Calvy, that there were 2 breaks; one from 26 December 1989 to 13 February 1990 and the other from 5 March 1990 to 18 July 1990, her employment terminating on one view on 28 July and on the other on 4th August; nothing turns on which of those latter dates was right.
The Industrial Tribunal rejected the claim regarding the second alleged gap and there is no cross-appeal against that so we need not deal with that but upheld the claim regarding the first gap. In respect of that there is the appeal that is before us and that was dated as long ago as 19 March 1991. There have been numerous attempts to fix an effective hearing but there have been obstacles in the path of this Tribunal in so doing in that the Respondent, Mr Calvy, has become insolvent and in the course of communications with the Free Representation Unit which in the shape of Miss Rebecca Chapman appeared for Miss Adler before the Industrial Tribunal, and subsequent persons acting in the FRU, contact has been made indirectly with Miss Chapman from which it has appeared that Miss Adler does not wish to continue with this appeal for the unsatisfactory but clear enough reason that the Respondent being bankrupt is not likely to be the source of any effective relief in her favour.
In those circumstances and there having been repeated notices as to the necessity for this appeal to be brought on, this does appear to be one of those cases where it would be right for us to dismiss the appeal.
The two grounds that are specifically mentioned in the Notice of Appeal do appear to raise questions which turn on issues of fact as to whether or not there was continuity but it is mainly on the basis that this Tribunal has an indirect indication from the Appellant that she does not wish to prosecute the appeal that we dismiss it as we do.
