 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Walker & Anor (t/a Business Post (Dudley) v Mitchell [1994] UKEAT 275_93_2803 (28 March 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/275_93_2803.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 275_93_2803 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
MR A D SCOTT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mark Walker and Heather Askins trading as Business Post (Dudley). It is the full hearing of an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Birmingham on the 15 January 1993. For reasons notified to the parties on the 18 March 1993, the Tribunal unanimously decided that a complaint made by Mr D M Mitchell under the Wages Act succeeded, and Mark Walker and Heather Askins were ordered to pay to Mr Mitchell the sum of £631.73.
As they were dissatisfied with the decision they accordingly put in a Notice of Appeal to this Tribunal received here on the 31 March 1993. The representatives of the Appellants were named in the notice of appeal as an individual personnel consultant with Peninsula Business Services of Manchester. The notice of appeal set out various grounds on which it was sought to challenge the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.
The appeal was set down for hearing. A letter was written to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by Peninsula Business Services on the 24 February 1994. The letter acknowledged receipt of the Tribunal's letter, enclosing a notice of the hearing. In the letter of the 24 February, Peninsula Business Services stated they were withdrawing representation because Mr Walker and Ms Askins had given up business. The partnership which they have formed had split up. They were unable to contact either of them. A letter recently written to their business address by Peninsula Business Services had been returned marked "gone away". The organisation for which they operated a franchise, Business Post, had no forwarding address for either of them. It was therefore stated in the Peninsula Services letter that they were afraid that the could not formally withdraw the appeal, as they had no instructions to do so through inability to contact the clients. It was pointed out that neither Mr Walker or Ms Askins were aware of the date of the appeal because Peninsula Business Services had been unable to get in touch with them.
We have also received a letter from the Respondent to the appeal, Mr Mitchell, stating he would be unable to attend the hearing. In a letter dated the 23 March 1994, he set out a number of points which he wished to make and listed some questions which he regarded as pertinent to the appeal.
The Appellants have not attended the hearing on the date fixed for the appeal. No representative of the Appellants has attended because the representative has been unable to obtain instructions. Mr Mitchell has not attended. In those circumstances the appeal is not prosecuted against Mr Mitchell. We shall therefore dismiss it.