[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Scaife v. Richard J Knaggs & Co [2000] EAT 477_99_2003 (20 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/477_99_2003.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 477_99_2003

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT): This is a re-hash of the judgment in Scaife against Richard J Knaggs. I say it is a re-hash because it transpires that although we gave judgment in the matter this morning the tape recording machine or the tape was not functioning properly and I am asked to reconstitute, in effect, what I said, in order that some record should be available of what happened this morning. I said something on these lines. I am bound to say I am reconstituting it by reference to a note I had in front of me at the time. It runs as follows:

1. We were to have had before us as a preliminary matter the appeal of Catherine Mary Scaife in the matter Scaife against Richard J Knaggs, a firm of Solicitors.
2. It transpires that on Friday last Mrs Scaife applied for the matter to be adjourned today because she was in great personal difficulties because of a severe illness on her mother's part, an illness so distracting that Mrs Scaife could hardly be expected to pay attention to her appeal. That application was apparently refused, but we did not know that. We have prepared the papers and we are all set, of course, to hear argument, but Mrs Scaife has not attended and we think it right not to deal with the matter in her absence.
3. Accordingly we adjourn the matter generally, it to be restored when Mrs Scaife is in a position to attend. It would be convenient if it came before the same three of us because each of us has spent some time preparing the case, but sometimes the effect of that is seriously to prolong the delay in the hearing of the matter and so what we say is this; that the case should be in front of the President and, if it is not inconvenient and if it does not unduly prolong the delay until the hearing, with the other two, Mrs Wilson and Mr Willis, who sat with the President today. If, however, reconstituting exactly the same panel leads to real delay then the matter should come before the President with any two other members sitting with him. Having said that we adjourn generally in the manner we have indicated.