 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Fannon v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd [1992] UKEAT 657_92_1711 (17 November 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/657_92_1711.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 657_92_1711 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR J CROSBY
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
REVIEW APPLICATION
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant No attendance by or
on behalf of the Appellant
For the Respondents No attendance by or
on behalf of the Respondents
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): The Appellant, Mr Fannon, appeals against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Exeter under the Chairmanship of Mr Sneath who on the 2nd July 1992 rejected his Originating Application alleging unfair dismissal.
His Notice of Appeal was dated 20th July 1992, the grounds of the appeal state:
"I was clearly involved with customer's serving and doing what should have been taken into account, after more than nine years service I know right from wrong."
As a result of that he was sent a letter indicating that the Registrar of this Appeal Tribunal could not discern any point of law in his Notice of Appeal. Of course he had a right to send the matter to a Judge. This right he exercised and as a result a panel of this Court, consisting of myself, Mr Crosby and Mr Springer, read the papers. I directed that the Hearing should be on documentation only and we dismissed his appeal as disclosing no arguable point of law. Mr Fannon, as is his right, asked for a review, it might have been anticipated that he asked for an oral hearing, it was open to him to come here before us today and to seek to argue the matter further, that is his right. We therefore sit today, in open Court, and consider the matter again.
Mr Fannon, in the interim, has consulted a firm of Solicitors who have written to us indicating that they can find no point of law on the documentation and have so advised Mr Fannon. Therefore, we are placed today in the situation that Mr Fannon does not appear; he has been advised by Solicitors that he has no point of law; he has not had the courtesy to inform us whether or not he wishes this matter to be heard afresh and we have therefore assembled, ready to hear him, he has not arrived.
We reconsider this matter and it is abundantly clear that there is no point of law. This appeal is dismissed.
Before leaving this case, however, we would point out that this is a good example of an instance where the appeal is utterly hopeless, and where the time of this Court is taken up and indeed, public expense is involved, where others are waiting in the queue and where the time of the staff in preparing bundles is already over-stretched. Although in the past there has never been a provision of which I am aware, allowing a court to order court costs, however nominal that sum may be, against a litigant who is, in fact, some might say, wasting the time of the court. Whether this is a matter for consideration we know not, it will be largely an administrative and possibly a political decision, we are not concerned with those decisions. We are concerned with the ability of this Appeal Tribunal to cope with the mass of appeals that are coming before it and where the pressure upon the staff is enormous. With those comments, which are unnecessary to the reasoning for the rejection of the appeal but may be something which can be considered by others, this appeal is dismissed.