Appeal No.	 EAT/1195/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 10 February 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD
MR P DAWSON OBE
MRS J M MATTHIAS

MR B TAILOR T/A TIKA CHICKEN CENTRE	APPELLANT

MR B KARKI	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR MICHAEL REUBEN
(Consultant)
Management & Technical Resources
Midland House
22 Midland Road
Olnoy
Buckinghamshire
MK46 4BL	

	MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD:   This is the preliminary hearing in an appeal by Mr Tailor t/a Tika Chicken Centre from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal at London (North) sitting on 15th August 1996. The decision of the tribunal was promulgated on 10th September 1996. 

	By its decision the Industrial Tribunal found that the appellant had unfairly dismissed the respondent and ordered compensation in a total sum of £11,076.12.

	The appellant appeals against the whole of that award.

	The relevant facts are very short. The respondent worked as a chef for the appellant for over 11 years. On 13th December 1995, the appellant wrote to the respondent in these terms:

“Due to your unbearable behaviour last night you have left me with no option but to dismiss you forthwith.”

	On 30th January 1996 Mr Karki, the respondent to this appeal, presented his application to the Industrial Tribunal. The appellant failed to enter an appearance. On 4th July 1996, the Industrial Tribunal informed the parties by letter that the case would proceed to a hearing on the basis of no appearance entered by the appellant; the appellant did not reply to the Industrial Tribunal’s letter at all. The case was listed for hearing. The appellant attended the hearing and he asked for his case to be heard. He even at that stage did not have a notice of appearance. The Industrial Tribunal refused his request to hear him, and the tribunal itself noted that even at that stage there was no notice of appearance, and nor had there been any application to extend time.

	The Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 provide that:

“3.-(1) A respondent shall, within 14 days of receiving the copy of the originating application, enter an appearance to the proceedings ...”

and the Regulations set out how that is to be done, what the appearance is to contain; in particular:
“	(b) stating whether or not he intends to resist the application; and 
	(c) if he does intend to resist it, setting out sufficient particulars to show on what grounds.
	...
	(2) A respondent who has not entered an appearance shall not be entitled to take any part in the proceedings except-
	(a) to apply under rule 15 for an extension of time ...”
	[(b), (c), (d) and (e) are not relevant to this application.]

	In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant says that following the issue of the originating application he was suffering from stress and depression due to financial difficulty, so he was unable to give his attention to the case. He says he was unaware of the provision of Regulation 3. In his Notice of Appeal he says that had he been able to present his case he would have been able to clarify the dismissal letter and the circumstances under which it came to be written.

	We have no affidavit in support of this appeal setting out on oath the reasons for the failure to comply with Regulation 3, or anything in the form of medical evidence. All we have been shown today, in addition to that Notice of Appeal, is a draft notice of appearance signed by Mr Reuben, who appears today for the appellant. It informs us that the appellant might have wanted to put before the Industrial Tribunal certain matters relating to the past conduct of the respondent to the appeal.

	We are entirely satisfied that the Industrial Tribunal acted properly in accordance with the Rules. Nothing has been put before us to persuade us either that the Industrial Tribunal was wrong, or that for any other reason the matter should be liable to be re-opened by remitting the case for a fresh hearing. Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed and the order of the Industrial Tribunal will stand.