Appeal No. EAT/316/92

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 16th December 1993

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKER

	MRS M L BOYLE

	MR A D SCOTT

MARTIN RETAIL GROUP PLC	APPELLANTS

MRS I DORMER	RESPONDENT

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR E TABACHNIK
(Queen's Counsel)
Messrs Park Nelson
Solicitors
1 Bell Yard
LONDON
WC2A 2SP

For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

	MR JUSTICE TUCKER:   We have two appeals here.  They both concern the Martin Retail Group plc.   In the first of them they are the Appellants against Mrs Dormer and in the second appeal they are the Respondents to an appeal brought by Mr Duke.

	On the face of it there are two decisions by different Industrial Tribunals which are in conflict with each other.  From the papers we have seen there would seem to be no material distinguishing features between these two cases and on a prima facie view it is difficult for us to see how we could reach different decisions in these appeals.  Those are our preliminary observations, of course, without having heard any argument on either side in either appeals.  
	Our problem today is that the Respondent to the first of these appeals, Mrs Isobel Dormer, through her new solicitors, applies for an adjournment in circumstances which are outlined in correspondence which has been drawn to our attention.

	It has been suggested by Mr Tabachnik, Queen's Counsel, on behalf of the Martin Retail Group plc, that we should decline to accede to the request for an adjournment, which has been made by Fax letter bearing today's date.  On the other hand we are very reluctant to proceed with an appeal when the Respondent to it is, for reasons which do not appear to be of her own making, not represented.  The view we take is that the better course for us is to adjourn the appeal of Martin Retail Group plc v. Isobel Dormer to a date to be fixed.  However, we make this observation.

	 As we have already said at present we can see no distinguishing features between these two appeals.  We shall hear argument in the Duke appeal now.  It may be that that argument will extend over two days, we do not know, but we shall deliver our decision in the Duke appeal as soon as possible thereafter.  We shall certainly not wait upon the outcome of the Martin Retail Group plc v. Mrs I Dormer appeal and we would expect, after delivering our decision in the Duke appeal, that the parties to the other appeal will take stock of the situation.  If, subsequently, we find that another appeal is mounted on what we regard as very similar facts we would have to consider the position as to costs.  We say no more about that, but it does seem to us that once the Duke appeal has been resolved then the parties in the other appeal ought to be able to reach agreement. 

	Accordingly we adjourn appeal number 316/92 and we propose to deal right away with the other appeal 647/92.