[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Arrow Consultants Ltd v. Davis [2000] UKEAT 242_00_2607 (26 July 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/242_00_2607.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 242_00_2607, [2000] UKEAT 242__2607

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Arrow Consultants Ltd in the matter Arrow Consultants Ltd against Mr A. Davis. Arrow appeals against its appeal being struck out. The matter was listed to come on this morning at 10:30 am. It is now 6 minutes to 3 in the afternoon and nothing has been heard from Arrow as to why it is that no one attends on their behalf or suggesting that there has been some unforeseen delay in ability to get here and so I have to go ahead in their absence.

1. On 20 October 1999 Mr Adam Davis lodged an IT1 claiming against Arrow that he had not been paid for work done. No IT3 seems to have been received from Arrow.
2. On 27 January there was a hearing at Brighton before the Chairman alone, Mr M.J. Davey. The case was fit to be heard by a Chairman alone under the provisions of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, section 4(2), section 4(3), para (g) and Employment Tribunals Rules 3(2), 8(1) (as amended) and rule 13(8).
3. The Chairman recorded that no appearance had been entered by Arrow and that no one attended on its behalf. The outcome was that Arrow was ordered to pay Mr Davis £150. Only Summary Reasons were given, as one would expect in a short case with no appearance by the Respondent.
4. On 11 February 2000 the Decision was sent to the parties. On 28 February 2000 Arrow wrote to the Employment Appeal Tribunal saying:

"I wish to make an Appeal for the following reasons due to a mix up in my diary I arrived at the Brighton Office a day late."

5. Nothing was heard and on 3 March 2000 the Deputy Registrar wrote to Arrow to say:

"The Employment Tribunal decision you submitted in support of your appeal is only in summary form, and I should explain that in order for the appeal to proceed here you must file a copy of the extended written reasons [extended written reasons are in bold type] of the Employment Tribunal in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3(1) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993.

I would draw your attention to the matter of William Hill Organisation v A Gravas (EAT/645/88) in which the EAT stated that without extended written reasons an appeal cannot properly continue, and upon appeal to the Court of Appeal the view of EAT was upheld.

The time for applying for the extended written reasons is set out in the Explanatory notes sent with the Employment Tribunal decision. In the event of your request for the extended written reasons being refused, you may make an appeal to the EAT against that refusal. The appeal must be made within 42 days of the date of the refusal letter and be supported by a copy of the refusal letter. The matter will then be set down for a preliminary hearing.

You should enclose a copy of this letter when making your application to the Employment Tribunal."

6. Nothing was heard and on the footing that no application had been made by Arrow to the Employment Tribunal for Extended Reasons, on 31 March the Registrar ordered as follows:

"IT IS ORDERED that unless confirmation in writing is received within 7 days from the date of this Order that an application has been made to the Employment Tribunal for the Extended Reasons for the Decision the Notice of Appeal will be struck out."

7. After that reference to the Order of 31 March 2000, nothing further was heard from Arrow and so on 5 May 2000, by a further Order of the learned Registrar, it was ordered that the Notice of Appeal should be struck out.
8. Nothing then was heard following Arrow's letter of 28 February 2000 from them until a letter of 9 May 2000 addressed to the EAT and in which, on behalf of that Company, the following was said:

"Mr W.H. Finn, Director of Arrow Consultants Ltd is currently abroad at present and will be returning Tuesday 16 May 2000. He has been in contact with myself and has expressed a wish to Appeal against the Order, and will be in contact with you on his return."

9. On 10 May the Registrar indicated that the letter of 5 May 2000 would be treated as an appeal against the Order of 5 May. On 24 July, in other words the day before yesterday, a letter was written to the Appellant saying this:

"I refer to the above matter and an urgent request from the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The President wishes to know whether you applied for Extended Reasons from the Employment Tribunal and if so, what reasons did you provide for the delay, if any. Also can you please confirm whether the Extended Reasons were refused, when you were notified of the refusal and by what letter in what terms.

I would greatly appreciate an answer by return fax due to the hearing for the above matter taking place on Wednesday 26^th July 2000 before the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal."

10. On the afternoon of 25 July, yesterday, at 2:37 pm Mr Newton of the EAT, according to the note that he has provided to me, records as follows:

"I phoned the Appellant to chase the reply to our letter dated 24 July 2000. I spoke to a gentleman who identified himself as Billy (who I assumed to be Mr W.H. Finn). I asked whether he had received our letter and he said that he had but that he did not see why he should respond to it as he had 'wasted enough time on the matter' as it was. He said he believed that he had sent in adequate information already. I believe he will not respond and does not intend to appear tomorrow."

Well, Mr Newton seems to have guessed right about the attendance today.

11. The unfortunate position now is that there is no indication of whether Arrow had indeed applied to the Employment Tribunal for Extended Reasons. The Order of 31 March made it quite plain that it needed to do so. Arrow have been asked to indicate whether it had, indeed, asked for Extended Reasons and has failed to answer, despite the correspondence and telephone communication which I have read. The interval between 31 March and 5 May in any case gave ample opportunity for Arrow to approach the Employment Tribunal and ask for Extended Reasons and to get a response to the request.
12. There is no attendance today to argue the appeal against the Order of 5 May 2000. I have no reason to upset the Registrar's Order of 5 May which, after all, was comprehensively foreshadowed in the earlier Order of 31 March and which, nonetheless, excited Arrow into no relevant activity.
13. Given that I am provided with no reason to set aside the striking-out Order of 5 May, I must let it stand. I can only, in the circumstances, dismiss the appeal.