Appeal No.	 EAT/317/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 10 March 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D A C LAMBERT
MRS J M MATTHIAS

ELLSWORTH AND HOLLAWAY PUBLISHING LTD	APPELLANT

MR D C HOWELLS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS	
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	By an Originating Application presented to the Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 23 May 1997, the Applicant, Mr Howells, brought a claim of wrongful dismissal and breach of contract against the Respondent, Ellsworth & Hollaway Publishing Ltd by whom he was employed as an advertising sales executive between 3 and 17 March 1997.  On that Form IT1 he showed the Respondent's business address as 9 Hill Street, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, and the address at which he worked as 9 Vyse Street, Hockley, Birmingham B18 6LT.

	No appearance was entered by the Respondent and on 20 August 1997 the matter came before a Tribunal sitting at Birmingham.  The Applicant appeared, the Respondent did not.  The Tribunal awarded the Applicant £192.00 for wages unpaid for the period of employment and £120.00 representing one weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.  A total of  £312.00.

	Following promulgation of that decision with summary reasons the company wrote an undated letter to the Tribunal, received on 21 October 1997, challenging the findings of the Tribunal, but giving no explanation as to its earlier failure to respond.

	On 5 November 1997 the company appealed to this Tribunal.  Extended Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision were promulgated on 6 November 1997.

	On 27 January 1998 Mr Brown, a director of the company, swore an affidavit in these proceedings, indicating that the company had not been served with the Originating Application and hence could not attend at the hearing, nor enter an appearance.  He said that the documents were provided to the company by tenants of an address 98 Vyse Street, Hockley.  An address which Mr Howells’ investigations with the Post Office revealed did not exist.

	The appeal came on for hearing before a division of the Appeal Tribunal,  presided over by Judge Butter QC on 2 April 1998.  The matter was allowed to proceed to a full appeal hearing and a direction was given that the Employment Tribunal provide this Appeal Tribunal with information showing that the Respondent was properly served with the Originating Application.

	The matter came before me, sitting with Mrs Palmer and Mr Jacques, for full hearing on 24 July 1998.  Both parties appeared, the company being represented by Mr Wheatley, the Sales Director.  It then turned out that Mr Brown was not in attendance, having suffered an accident over the weekend.  Mr Howells, through solicitors, had submitted a skeleton argument to the EAT, which took issue with the contents with Mr Brown’s affidavit.  Mr Wheatley said he had not seen the skeleton argument and Mr Howells could not be certain that his solicitors had sent a copy to the company.  

	In those circumstances, we were obliged to adjourn the appeal and gave further directions:

	(a)	as to the filing of further affidavit evidence by the parties; and 

	(b)	for assistance from the Tribunal as to service of the Originating Application on the Respondent.

	In the event Mr Howells complied with the first direction by filing an affidavit sworn on 29 September 1998.  However, no affidavit in reply was received from the company.

	The Employment Tribunal confirmed that copies of the Form IT1 had been sent to both addresses appearing on that form.

	It then transpired that the company had gone into liquidation.  The EAT wrote to the liquidator on 26 November 1998.  By letter dated 4 January 1999 the liquidator indicated that the company had no assets and no affidavit would be provided pursuant to the direction previously given.

	Accordingly, the case was listed for disposal today.  There is no appearance by or on behalf of the Appellant company or the liquidator and in those circumstances we shall dismiss this appeal.