[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> J H Printers Ltd v Taylor [1994] UKEAT 818_93_2007 (20 July 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/818_93_2007.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 818_93_2007

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 818_93_2007

Appeal No. EAT/818/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20 July 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR P DAWSON OBE

MISS C HOLROYD

---

J H PRINTERS LTD          APPELLANTS

MS S M TAYLOR          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY: (PRESIDENT) In this case the appeal is against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on the 11 August 1993. The appeal first came on for hearing before this Tribunal on the 27 January 1994. It had been set down as a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was an arguable point of law which justified the appeal proceeding to a full hearing.

At the preliminary hearing nobody appeared and there was no representation on behalf of the Appellants. For reasons given at that hearing we took an unusual course of allowing the appeal and directing that the matter be remitted for hearing before a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal. That is an unusual course. The normal course on a preliminary hearing is either to dismiss the appeal, because there is no arguable point of law, or if there is one, to allow the matter to go to a full hearing.

For the reasons set out in the transcript of our judgment we thought that that was a case where there was no point in the matter going to a full hearing; it should go directly back to the Industrial Tribunal for a re-hearing. In order to protect the position of the Respondent, who was unrepresented, as is usually the case, at the preliminary hearing, we included in the Order a liberty to the Respondent to apply to this Tribunal within 7 days of the date of the Order to make submissions on the matter of remission.

Initially, the Respondent wished to take up that liberty to apply. Since the Tribunal was notified of that wish there has been correspondence, from which it appears that the Solicitors representing the Respondent are without instructions. The Solicitors, Alfred Newton & Co, of Stockport, sent a letter to the Tribunal on the 12 July saying that they were not in a position to represent the Respondent at the hearing today and they accepted that the "written appeal", by which they mean the application under the liberty to apply, is likely to be dismissed and the case remitted to the Manchester Industrial Tribunal.

There has also been some correspondence from the Appellants. They have informed us, through Mr Holland, that he is unable to finance a trip to London and would not attend today's hearing. He also raises a query as to how the Respondent is able to make a claim for legal aid for her case when she is no longer resident in this country. That is not a point that need concern us.

The position today is this; that although the liberty to apply was included in the Order of the 27 January and the Respondent initially took it up, it has not been pursued as her Solicitors are without instructions. In those circumstances the application under the liberty to apply should be dismissed for want for prosecution. The Order made on the 27 January will take effect according to its terms; that is, the matter will be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal in Manchester for a re-hearing.