[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Coop & Anor v Bass Brewers Ltd [1994] UKEAT 194_93_2006 (20 June 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/194_93_2006.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 194_93_2006

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 194_93_2006

Appeal No. EAT/194/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20 June 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MRS R CHAPMAN

MRS T MARSLAND

---

(1) MR C COOP          APPELLANTS

(2) MR N SKELTON

BASS BREWERS LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO ATTENDANCE OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANTS

For the Respondents MR M G DAVIES

(SOLICITOR)

Andersons

Solicitors

Queens Bench Chambers

42 The Ropewalk

Nottingham NG1 5EJ


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Leeds on the 26 November 1992. For summary reasons notified to the parties on the 14 January 1993, the Tribunal unanimously decided that the Applicants, Mr Coop and Mr Skelton, had not been unfairly dismissed by their former employers, Bass Brewers Ltd. The Full Reasons were later given on the 1 November 1993. Mr Coop and Mr Skelton were dissatisfied with the decision and decided to appeal.

A Notice of Appeal was submitted on their behalf by their Solicitors, Pattinson & Brewer. Pattinson & Brewer subsequently wrote to the Tribunal on the 8 February 1994 informing the Tribunal that they had no further instructions in the matter. Letters were written by the Registrar to Mr Coop and Mr Skelton at their home addresses, enclosing copies of Pattinson & Brewer's letter, and asking them to inform the Tribunal in writing within 14 days whether or not their appeal was to proceed.

The Solicitors acting for Bass Brewers, Andersons, were kept informed of the situation. They too had heard nothing from Mr Coop and Mr Skelton. Further letters were sent by the Registrar. As no replies were received from either of them, letters were sent on the 21 March, and it was made clear in both letters that, if no reply was received within 7 days, the matter would be referred for directions as to the future conduct of the appeal. Nothing has been heard from either of the Appellants.

It was in those circumstances that Andersons wrote on behalf of Bass Brewers to the Tribunal on the 13 June saying that it was their intention to be present at the hearing of the appeal, but not to incur unnecessary costs in preparing skeleton arguments and lists of authorities. Their intention was that, if Mr Coop and Mr Skelton attended, they would ask for an adjournment so that they could then arrange to make the necessary preparations for the argument on the appeal.

The position today is that Mr Davies of Andersons has attended for Bass Brewers. Neither Mr Coop nor Mr Skelton have attended. It would appear that they must have decided not to pursue this appeal. In those circumstances the appeal of both of them will be dismissed for want of prosecution.