Appeal No.EAT/1001/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 September 1996

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR R JACKSON
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

INITIAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES LTD	APPELLANTS	
1) MR B T TOMKINSON & OTHERS
2) MR A ALLOWAY & OTHERS	RESPONDENTS	

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF APPPELLANTS	
For the Respondents	MR G NARDELL
(Counsel)
Messrs Thompsons
Solicitors
Price House
37 Stoney Street
The Lace Market
Nottingham  NG1  1NF	

		MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:   In this matter we are concerned with an appeal arising in the following circumstances: there is due to be heard tomorrow (20 September) at Nottingham, applications by various Applicants for compensation for unfair dismissal.  Those applications are made against the Respondents, Initial Healthcare.

	Initial Healthcare applied to the Chairman to adjourn tomorrow’s hearing.  The Chairman in a short written decision refused that application.  He did not in the course of that decision (communicated by way of a letter of 16 September) set out any reasons, but it may well be that given the very late date at which the application was made, and the paucity of good grounds for the application, that he felt it unnecessary to say more at that time.  It is against that decision that the appeal has been mounted by the Respondents the application Initial Healthcare.

	The point that they seek to take is this: that they anticipate being the transferor of the relevant undertaking to a company, Taylorplan Ltd, on 14/15 October, that on their reading of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations) 1981 any liability that may be established to these Applicants would somehow transfer to Taylorplan.  We make no comment about that argument save that to note that the circumstances giving rise to any such transfer must be somewhat unusual.  At all events, given this anticipated transfer, the application is made that the hearing of these complaints be adjourned until after 14/15 October.

	This Tribunal on the material put before it, has been totally unable to find any reason for any such adjournment and indeed there seems to be a very strong reason for having the matter heard tomorrow, so that any transfer on 14/15 October can take place in the light of the full knowledge of any liabilities that form part of the undertaking for the purposes of a transfer and thus fall to be taken on board by the transferees pursuant to the regulations.  Thus it is, on the material before us, we have no hesitation whatsoever in dismissing this appeal.

	This then leaves one other matter for our decision and it arises as follows: notwithstanding that it is the Respondents to the applications, Initial Healthcare Services, that mounted this appeal, they have not attended here today, and have been content to have the matter decided upon the documentation put before us.  However, there has been an attendance before us by the Applicants themselves, who are of course Respondents to the appeal.  They are concerned that the matter should go forward tomorrow and they have attended by way of Solicitor and Counsel, Mr Nardell.  Mr Nardell in his turn, hearing that we were intent on dismissing the appeal given the apparent total lack of any merit, applied for his costs.  This application we have given careful consideration to and having regard to our view as to the merits of the appeal and to the apparent fact that there was no indication given that the Appellants were proposing simply to have the matter dealt with on paper so as to obviate the need for any attendance by the Respondents to the appeal, his application, in our judgment, has merit.  It has merit to this extent, that we do make an order for costs in the favour of the Respondents to this appeal in the sum of £500.