[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ganeshmoorthy v H R Smith (Technical Developments) Ltd [1996] UKEAT 510_94_1405 (14 May 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/510_94_1405.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 510_94_1405

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

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 510_94_1405

Appeal No. EAT/510/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14 May 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR T C THOMAS CBE

MR N D WILLIS

---

MR K GANESHMOORTHY          APPELLANT

H R SMITH (TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS) LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the adjourned Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Ganeshmoorthy against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Cardiff on 17 March 1994. The Tribunal, in Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 12 April 1994, unanimously decided that Mr Ganeshmoorthy's dismissal by the Respondents H R Smith (Technical Developments) Ltd was fair.

He served a Notice of Appeal on 24 May 1994. The case came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal as a Preliminary Hearing on 7 February 1995. Mr Ganeshmoorthy was not present at the hearing and was not represented, but for reasons explained in the judgment given on that day, the Preliminary Hearing was adjourned to be re-fixed in accordance with directions given in the judgment. Subsequently there was correspondence between the Tribunal and the solicitors who had previously represented Mr Ganeshmoorthy. They informed the Tribunal that they had not obtained any instructions from their client. There was also correspondence with the Appellants.

The position today appears to be this. When notified that this matter was set down for disposal, the Appellant responded by saying that he did not intend to be present at the hearing. In the form which he returned stating that intention, he added "please strike out the application for the appeal". We understand that to mean that the Appellant no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.