Appeal No. EAT/1050/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 1 December 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
SIR GAVIN LAIRD CBE
MRS J M MATTHIAS

BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS LTD	APPELLANTS

MRS K E ALLEN	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	NO ATTENDANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal raised by Business Publications Ltd against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman not to supply Extended Reasons for a decision which they had arrived at in this case.

	The Applicant and the Respondent to this appeal, Mrs Allen, had presented a complaint relating to her dismissal by the Appellants.  Having lodged her IT1 she could then reasonably have expected that the Respondents would have served an IT3.  They did not serve an IT3.  They did not participate in the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal and have sought to appeal the decision which was arrived at in Mrs Allen’s favour.  

	We have, in support of this appeal, been provided with an Affidavit which we can legitimately, we think, describe as evasive in material respects.  The question that we would wish to examine is why it was that the company did not participate in the Industrial Tribunal proceedings.  Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Affidavit says this:
“I consequently then discovered that I was barred from the Industrial Tribunal proceedings although I do not recall ever receiving a hearing date in respect of this.  Eventually I instructed our advisors, who subsequently wrote to the Industrial Tribunal and lodged the Appeal.
I also exhibit a draft of the Notice of Appearance .....”

It is to be noted that this Affidavit is lacking in particularity.  It does not say when they discovered that they were barred from the Industrial Tribunal proceedings or on what ground they say that they were barred, or whether they ever did receive a hearing date.  It seems to us that is very far from being a satisfactory state of affairs.  

	The fact that they drafted a Notice of Appearance is of no relevance if they did not file it, if they were aware of the proceedings as they were, being brought against them: there being no suggestion that the identity of the employers was incorrect as stated in the IT1.  

	Accordingly, we have here a case where an Appellant did not participate in the proceedings below and only now wishes to complain.  We do not allow that to happen.  The purpose of the Industrial Tribunal proceedings is to enable both parties to participate, and it is rare, if ever, that we will allow a party to appeal who has not participated in the Tribunal proceedings below.  But it goes further than that.  It would appear to us that what has happened in this case is that Business Publications Ltd have been playing for time by putting in a Notice of Appeal.  We have been informed that they are now no longer in business; their solicitors have come “off the record” and it would appear therefore that they are no longer interested in this appeal.  They have not appeared before us today.  Accordingly, we have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal.