Gem Wear Ltd v Levitt [1991] UKEAT 487_91_0509 (5 September 1991)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gem Wear Ltd v Levitt [1991] UKEAT 487_91_0509 (5 September 1991)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/487_91_0509.html
Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 487_91_509, [1991] UKEAT 487_91_0509

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


    BAILII case number: [1991] UKEAT 487_91_0509

    Appeal No. EAT/487/91

    EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

    4 ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, LONDON, SW1 4JU

    At the Tribunal

    On 5th September 1991

    Before

    THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

    MR R H PHIPPS

    MR S M SPRINGER MBE


    GEM WEAR LTD          APPELLANTS

    MR A LEVITT          RESPONDENT


    Transcript of Proceedings

    JUDGMENT

    Revised


     

    APPEARANCES

    For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR

    REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE

    APPELLANTS

    For the Respondent MR A LEVITT

    (In Person)


     

    MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Interlocutory Appeal by Gem Wear Limited against a Decision by a learned Chairman of Tribunals that the case in which Mr Levitt is the Applicant and the Company are the Respondents should be heard next week on Tuesday, 10th September, at Bury St Edmunds.

    The Originating Application was made on the 26th May 1991 and a Notice of Hearing was sent to parties on the 19th July. The date then given was the 28th August and the Company, very promptly, through Mr Andrew Carruthers, wrote saying that that was inconvenient because he would be abroad until the end of August; he would also be in the United States of America for the last two weeks of September.

    Therefore, the learned Chairman agreed to an adjournment but fixed the date of the 10th September so as to coincide with the problems raised by the Company in their letter. The Company now say that is inconvenient and want to put it off yet again.

    The issue here may be a very simple one. We see no reason to criticise or to disagree with the exercise of discretion by the learned Chairman. This is a hopeless appeal. It is dismissed and Mr Levitt has been brought here, and we shall grant him £45 costs, to include his travelling expenses and other loss.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/487_91_0509.html