[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Paneri Ltd v. Charalambous [2000] EAT 474_99_0507 (5 July 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/474_99_0507.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 474_99_507, [2000] EAT 474_99_0507

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A C SHAKALLIS Lay Representative
For the Respondent	MR CHARALAMBOS IN PERSON


 


JUDGE WILCOX:

1. This is an appeal against a refusal of a Tribunal Chairman to consider an adjournment. Firstly, it seems an adjournment was never asked for in terms. Secondly, it seems that the material that the Appellant would have sought to introduce had an adjournment been granted was contained in two statements; one from a retired employee of the Appellant and one from an employee who was in fact working at the time, who would have been available and could have come to the Tribunal. It seems to us there is nothing in this matter, that has been very thoroughly gone into on behalf of the Appellant, that would indicate to us that there was any error in the exercise of the discretion by the Tribunal Chairman.
2. Firstly, we have regard to the contents of the statements. We note that they are undated. We note that they do not refer to any particular time. Secondly, I have already adverted to the fact that the witness who may have spoken to one of the statements was not called. He could have been called, and he was still employed by the Appellant. That was a matter entirely for the Appellant and those who were advising him. Thirdly, it is complained of that there was not time to prepare this particular application. We note that very clearly the Appellant was told through those who represent him some 11 days before the Tribunal hearing that the date stood, that there was going to be a hearing and he chose we note not to get his tackle in order and to bring along the requisite witnesses.
3. We have observed a similar lack of preparation when it came to the appeal before us. Documentation has not been properly prepared and furnished to the court. Mr Parson has not bothered to turn up and Mr Shakallis, who we have heard is not from a firm of solicitors, has represented him. We do not have any note as to his authority in this matter but none the less we have been given very careful consideration to the submissions that he has sought to make. We dismiss this appeal. We will not make an order for costs.