& Ors

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gritz v. Gate-Free Ltd Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2000] UKEAT 665_00_2306 (23 June 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/665_00_2306.html
Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 665_00_2306, [2000] UKEAT 665__2306

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


BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 665_00_2306
Appeal No. EAT/665/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 23 June 2000

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVID WILCOX

MR W MORRIS

MR R N STRAKER



MR A GRITZ APPELLANT

GATE-FREE LTD
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE & INDUSTRY
RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX-PARTE

© Copyright 2000


    APPEARANCES

     

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


     

    JUDGE DAVID WILCOX:

  1. Mr Gritz is not present. The appeal relates to his failure to present his complaint against the Respondent within three months after 20 March 1998, which was the material date. He was unable, in his application to the Tribunal, to produce any correspondence or documents to show that he was promised by his employer, the First Respondent, payment of sums which were due which would warrant him therefore waiting.
  2. The issue before the Chairman was clearly whether it was reasonably practicable for the Applicant to have presented his claim against the First Respondent within three months. He did not persuade the Chairman thus and, in the absence of any evidence that it was reasonably practicable or that there was misdirection, it is clear that the Chairman of the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's substantive complaint against the First Respondent.
  3. It is interesting to note that a search was in fact made against the Respondent. That search relating to insolvency, in particular, the Company search indicated that no steps had been taken to show that the Company had in fact been put into liquidation. The Chairman was not satisfied that the Respondent was insolvent and, for that reason alone, it is clear that substantively the Applicant's complaints against the Second Respondent, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the appeal could not be maintained.
  4. There is no merit in the appeal and we dismiss it.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/665_00_2306.html