BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> W E Sykes (Halifax) Ltd v Thomas [1993] UKEAT 388_93_2505 (25 May 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/388_93_2505.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 388_93_2505

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



     

    BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 388_93_2505

    Appeal No. EAT/388/93

    EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

    58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

    At the Tribunal

    On 25th May 1993

    Before

    THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

    MR J RAMSAY

    MRS P TURNER OBE


    W E SYKES (HALIFAX) LTD          APPELLANTS

    MR P THOMAS          RESPONDENT


    Transcript of Proceedings

    JUDGMENT

    Revised


     

    APPEARANCES

    For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF           APPELLANTS

    For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT


     

    MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by W E Sykes (Halifax) Ltd against a refusal by the Chairman of an Industrial Tribunal to vacate a date fixed for a hearing.

    The basis of the application is that two important witnesses will be absent on holiday.

    No doubt the date was fixed after the usual notice was sent to the parties asking them what dates were convenient. But in any event if that is not so we are not told so, we merely assume that that is so, and if the date was fixed after that arrangement was made, we can see no error in the exercise of discretion. We are quite unable to have all the facts and circumstances before us which were before the learned Chairman.

    The Appellants do not appear and neither do the Respondents. The Respondents objected. An application can be made at the hearing for an adjournment and the learned Chairman, on the day of the hearing, can make up his mind. It may be possible for the case to start and some of the evidence to be heard, we know not. But there is no error in the exercise of the discretion in this case and the appeal is dismissed.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/388_93_2505.html