[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Work Logic v Gleeson [1998] UKEAT 896_96_0602 (6 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/896_96_0602.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 896_96_0602, [1998] UKEAT 896_96_602

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: On 4 May 1996 the Applicant, Mr Gleeson, presented a complaint of unfair dismissal to the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals against the Respondent, Work Logic. He gave as the period of employment 16 February until 1 May 1996. It was implicit in the complaint that he relied upon an inadmissible reason for dismissal under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so as to found the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear that complaint. By their Notice of Appearance the Respondent took the point that he was engaged as a paint sprayer under a contract for services. He was not an employee.

The matter came before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bristol on 27 June 1996. In a decision promulgated on 4 July 1996, the Tribunal recorded an order made by consent under which the Respondent agreed to pay the sum of £900 by four equal instalments to the Applicant. The proceedings were adjourned pending payment of the full amount. Thereafter the Respondent instructed Solicitors, Gwyn James & Co. Those Solicitors applied for a review of the Tribunal's decision by letter dated 19 July. That application was refused by the Chairman on 1 August.

By a Notice of Appeal dated 9 August 1996 the Respondent appealed against the Tribunal's consent order to this Appeal Tribunal, on the grounds that the Applicant was not an employee; was not dismissed and had not completed two years continuous service.

By a letter date-stamped 12 August 1996, the Applicant applied to have the matter re-listed before the Industrial Tribunal on the grounds that the Respondent had failed to make any of the agreed payments. That application, treated as an application for review, was acceded to by the Chairman, who directed that the matter be re-listed.

On 4 September 1996 the Respondent's Solicitors wrote to the EAT, pointing out that the Industrial Tribunal had agreed to set down their client's application for a review for hearing on 25 September. In fact, the Respondent's application for a review had been dismissed. It was the Applicant's application which led to the review hearing on that date. The Solicitors applied for an adjournment of the appeal hearing, which was granted by letter from the Registrar dated 13 September.

The review hearing took place before the Industrial Tribunal on 25 September. The Applicant attended; the Respondent did not appear and was not represented. For the extended reasons promulgated on 9 October 1996 the Tribunal revoked its earlier decision; found that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed for an inadmissible reason and awarded him compensation totalling £8,925.

So far as we are aware there has been no appeal against that second Tribunal decision.

On 22 April 1997 the Registrar wrote to the Respondent's Solicitors enquiring as to the position in the appeal.

On 23 April those Solicitors replied, stating that they would take their client's instructions but were under the impression that this matter was not to proceed.

Pausing there, we should be surprised if it were to proceed, bearing in mind that this is an appeal against a consent order, subsequently revoked following non-compliance by the Respondent and replaced by a finding of unfair dismissal and an award of compensation which is not, itself, the subject of an appeal.

Nothing further was heard and on 7 January 1998 the Respondent's Solicitors were asked to say within seven days whether the appeal was to be withdrawn or pursued.

By letter dated 8 January the Respondent's Solicitors informed the EAT that they were without instructions.

Consequently the case was listed for disposal today by a Notice of Hearing dated 29 January 1998. This morning there has been no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. In view of the history of the matter, as we have related it, we shall dismiss this appeal.