Appeal No.	 EAT/547/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 13 November 1996

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MISS J W COLLERSON
MR D J JENKINS MBE

BUILDING SERVICES MAINTENANCE	APPELLANTS

MR F KENEBEL	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (P):   There is no appearance in this matter. It is listed for a preliminary hearing. The circumstances in which the matter comes before us is as follows: on 26th April 1996 a tribunal sitting at Bury St Edmunds heard a complaint under the Wages Act and adjudicated in favour of the applicant, Mr Kenebel, against his employers, Building Services Maintenance, and ordered that £618 be paid.

	There was a Notice of Appeal filed on 22nd May 1996 by the employers. What they said was that they did not receive notice of the hearing as it was wrongly addressed, and the decision was made in their absence, and thus was wrongly made. The interests of justice required a review.

	This Employment Appeal Tribunal in accordance with its Practice Direction, having regard to the failure of the respondents to file a Notice of Appearance at the Industrial Tribunal, required the appellant to lodge an affidavit with the Employment Appeal Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 16(3) of the Practice Direction within seven days from today, that was dated 28th October 1996. No affidavit has been received by us. The respondents were notified of this hearing date. They indicated over the telephone to this office that payment was being made. This court has endeavoured to contact the employers this morning to find out what they are doing. We have received no assistance over the telephone from the prospective employers, who have asked if we would get in touch with their finance personnel in order to find out whether payment is being made. 

	In the circumstances, being satisfied that there has been non-compliance with this court’s order, we propose to dismiss this appeal.