Appeal No.	 EAT/317/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 July 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MRS D M PALMER
MR P R A JACQUES CBE

ELLSWORTH & HOLLAWAY PUBLISHING LTD	APPELLANTS

MR D C HOWELLS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR ELLIS WHEATLEY
(Sales Director)
	
For the Respondent	MR D HOWELLS
(in person)	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	Mr Wheatley, the sales director of the Appellant company who appears on its behalf, informed us that Mr Brown, the managing director of the company, who has sworn an affidavit in these proceedings on 27 January 1998, was unfit to attend due to an accident over the weekend.   Nevertheless we directed that the appeal should proceed on the assumption, at that stage, that a document described as a ‘skeleton argument’ and prepared by solicitors instructed by Mr Howells, a copy of which was sent under cover of a letter dated 9 July 1998 to this Tribunal, had been disclosed to the Appellants in accordance with our Rules.   It subsequently transpired that Mr Wheatley was unaware of that document and Mr Howells has been unable to assure us that a copy was sent to the Appellant.

	The difficulty that that raises is that in that skeleton argument the Respondent, Mr Howells, takes issue with a number of matters raised in Mr Brown’s affidavit.   Those disputes, it seems to us, are central to this appeal.   In our judgement the appeal cannot usefully proceed further today.   

	We give the following directions for the further disposal of the appeal, first, the Respondent, Mr Howells, shall make and file an affidavit within 14 days setting out the matters raised in his skeleton argument and exhibiting all relevant documents and in particular letters from the Post Office.   A copy of that affidavit will then be sent to the Appellant and Mr Brown is required to reply by a further affidavit within 14 days of receipt of a copy of the Respondent’s affidavit.   When those affidavits are returned I shall give further directions for the disposal of this case.   

	Meanwhile, the Industrial Tribunal should be asked for an explanation as to why Notice of Originating Application was sent out on two separate occasions, the first was a Notice dated 29 May 1997, addressed to the Appellant at 9 Hill Street, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, the second is a notice dated 6 June 1997, addressed to the Appellant at 9 Vyse Street, Hockley, Birmingham.   It seems likely that the first Notice was sent to an incorrect address, 9 Hill Street, on the basis of the unclear writing on the Originating Application.  In fact the registered office of the company is at 9 Mill Street, Sutton Coldfield.   We therefore deduce, but with no certainty, that that document was returned by the Post Office, the address in Sutton Coldfield not being known, and as a result the Industrial Tribunal sent out the second notice to 9 Vyse Street, the correct trading address of the company, which also appears on the Originating Application.   We should be grateful if the Industrial Tribunal could assist as to the true position.   On this basis the appeal is adjourned.