Appeal No.	 EAT/1261/95

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 November 1996

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MRS J M MATTHIAS
MR R SANDERSON OBE

E A GRIMSTEAD & SON LTD	APPELLANTS

MR J R WINTERS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR R THORESBY
(of Counsel)
Messrs Clarke & Norris
Solicitors
1 River Chambers
High Street
Romford
Essex
RM1 1LL	
For the Respondent	MR A J KOLODZIEJ
(of Counsel)
Messrs Colemans
Solicitors
141 New London Road
Chelmsford
Essex
CM2 0QT	

	JUDGE LEVY QC:   When this appeal was listed, the appellant was styled as “Eddy Grimstead (Honda)”, and the respondent as Mr J R Winters. At the outset of the appeal Mr Thoresby, who appeared for the appellant, asked for leave to amend the name of his client to “E A Grimstead & Son Ltd”, that leave was readily given. I shall henceforth refer to the appellant as “the Company”.

	It is lamentable that it took until the first day of an appeal, this having been before an Employment Appeal Tribunal on an earlier occasion, that a respondent to an originating application takes no steps to see that it is properly named.

	The appeal, in fact, is against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal promulgated on 9th August 1995, when the company was not represented at the hearing. The Industrial Tribunal held that the respondent to the appeal, Mr Winters, had been wrongfully dismissed.

	An application was made by Mr Thoresby to amend the Notice of Appeal in these circumstances: on the ex-parte application for leave to appeal a point was observed by the tribunal which might have made the case arguable, and on 1st May 1996, the court made an order in these terms, so far as this appeal is concerned:

“AND UPON the application of the Appellant for leave to enter an amended Notice of Appeal
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the aforesaid application be stood over until the full hearing of the appeal a date for which has yet to be fixed.”

	When the matter came on for hearing today, Mr Thoresby did not have any explanation for the delay in the appeal being mounted out of time, and in that regard, after he had been referred to the decision of Mr Justice Mummery and colleagues in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar & Others [1995] ICR 65, he abandoned his application to amend the Notice of Appeal. He subsequently abandoned his application to appeal against the decision on liability of the Industrial Tribunal, and what was then left was an appeal against quantum.

	After reference had been made to the passage in Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law - Volume 1, at paragraph [2783] page D/1486/D1487, Mr Thoresby said that the difference between himself and Mr Kolodziej who appeared for the respondent to the appeal, were minor and in those circumstances he felt it would be inappropriate to pursue the appeal on quantum, he having taken instructions on it.

	There is therefore nothing left in this appeal other than to dismiss it.