Appeal No. EAT/642/93
	I N T E R N A L 

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 17 January 1994

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

	MR D O GLADWIN CBE JP

	MR J C RAMSAY

(1) EXECUTIVE CENTRES PLC 	APPELLANTS
(2) CENTREX BUSINESS CENTRES LTD

(1) MR P T BOND (2) MR D M BARRASS	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON
BEHALF OF THE 
APPELLANTS

For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON
BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS

	JUDGE LEVY QC:  First on the list today is an appeal and a cross-appeal by Executive Centres PLC & Another ("the Appellants") v Peter Thomas Bond & Another ("the Respondent").  The Employment Appeal Office ("the Office") was informed by a letter dated 7 January 1994 that the Appellants were appointing new solicitors:  that they would withdraw their appeal which was about costs and they would not appear on the Respondents' cross-appeal which was also about costs.  On the same day, 7 January, the Respondents' solicitors wrote to the Office saying that they understood that the appeal was going to be withdrawn and the Respondents would continue with their cross-appeal.  By a further letter to the Office dated 12 January from the Respondents' Solicitors the Tribunal learned that the Appellants had been put into liquidation on 10 January 1994.  In that letter it was stated that the Respondents would withdraw their appeal but would seek an order for costs against the Appellants in respect of the appeal, because they had prepared their Skeleton Argument which had been withdrawn at a late stage;  they asked if that application could be heard without appearance by the Respondents by their Counsel.

	It is not for the Tribunal to give advice as to how the rules can be construed, but of course an application for costs can be made if people do not appear but of course one has to have the material on which one can consider the application.  Material we have to adjudicate on costs is contained in the words set out in the Respondents solicitors letter of 12 January.  The material passage reads:

		"It seems a pointless exercise to request that Mr. Bond and Mr. Barrass's adjourned application in the Industrial Tribunal be re-listed.

		As the Appellants withdrew their appeal at a late hour and after Counsel for Messrs Bond and Barrass had prepared the Skeleton Argument and solicitors had prepared a draft bundle, a Cost Order is sought against the Appellants."

We also have further material in a letter sent by facsimile and posted on 14 January where the Respondents' solicitors further wrote:

		"We confirm for the avoidance of doubt, that the Respondents Mr. Bond and Mr. Barrass will not appear themselves or by Counsel on Monday, 17 January 1994.  Nevertheless the Respondents seek a Costs Order in respect of the costs incurred in preparation for the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing in view of the late notice from the Appellants that they withdrew their appeal.  It must be the case that the Appellants had decided not to proceed with their appeal long before notice was given by telephone on 31st December and in writing on 10th January 1994.  Skeleton Arguments for the Respondents and a draft bundle had been prepared prior to notice from the Appellants.  In the circumstances the Respondents request the Employment Appeal Tribunal to exercise its discretion and to grant an Order for costs to the Respondents."

	On that material we have considered what the Respondents' solicitors have asked us to do but in our discretion have decided that no order for costs should be made.