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 >> Imperial Express UK Ltd v Russ [1993] UKEAT 73_93_2201 (22 January 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/73_93_2201.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 73_93_2201 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR T S BATHO
MR D O GLADWIN CBE JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is the case of Imperial Express UK Ltd against Mr S Russ. The Company appeal against an Order made on 11th November 1992, by the Chairman sitting in Newcastle upon Tyne, striking out the notice of appearance. It is sought to set that aside so as to permit the Company to appear at a hearing on 25th January, this month.
The originating application was dated 22nd June 1992 and the notice of appearance is dated 10th August 1992. By an Order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 16th September 1992, further and better particulars were ordered. A letter dated 26th October 1992, was sent to the Company warning them that if they did not comply they would be struck out.
The company did not supply the particulars, and as far as we can see they did not communicate with the Industrial Tribunal. In their letter to us they indicate that the problems which existed were because of restraint from trading as a result of the failure to present the Company accounts within the requisite period. They were in the hands, not only of their accountants (a new accountant), but also, apparently, the solicitor, yet nothing was done and no communication was made to the Industrial Tribunal.
This seems to us unusual, but in any event an appeal to this Court is only on a point of law and we can find no ground whatever for setting aside the Order of the Learned Chairman. The only possible course open to the Company, is to appear, with or without the representation of their solicitor, on the relevant date and to go on bended knee, ask for mercy and explain the situation. Whether or not their explanation is sufficient to meet the complaints against them is entirely a matter for the Learned Chairman. This appeal is dismissed.
