[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wooff v British Railways Board [1994] UKEAT 1052_94_1212 (12 December 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/1052_94_1212.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 1052_94_1212

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 1052_94_1212

Appeal No. EAT/1052/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 12 December 1994

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

DR D GRIEVES, CBE

MR P DAWSON, OBE

---

MR M WOOFF          APPELLANT

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant APPELLANT NEITHER

PRESENT NOR

REPRESENTED

For the Respondents RESPONDENTS NEITHER

PRESENT NOR

REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): On 10 October 1994, the Appeal in this case brought by Mr M Wooff against the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Leeds last June, came before the Tribunal as a preliminary hearing. The purpose of the preliminary hearing was to decide whether the Notice of Appeal disclosed an arguable point of law.

Having considered the matter in the absence of Mr Wooff's attendance, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no arguable point of law was disclosed in the Notice of Appeal, in the Full Reasons of the Industrial Tribunal, or in written representations made on behalf of the Appellant. The Appeal was accordingly dismissed, but there was included in the Order the following provision; leave to apply within 28 days of the date of this Order for an oral hearing. Such application must be in writing and must reach the office of the Employment Appeal Tribunal not later than 28 days from the date of this Order.

On 4 November, Mr Wooff wrote to the Industrial Tribunal, confirming that he wished to exercise his right to apply for an oral hearing. The case was accordingly re-listed as a preliminary hearing. It was listed as an unassigned case for today.

On Friday last, 9 December, the Tribunal received a further letter from Mr Wooff, enclosing a letter sent to him by the Bradford Law Centre, whom he had consulted about his Appeal. He states that, in view of the contents of the Bradford Law Centre letter, there was little point in his travelling to London today to make oral representations. He stated:

"... Consequently, I write to advise that I will not be doing so, and offer my apologies for any inconvenience that this may cause..."

He adds his comments about his dissatisfaction with the Tribunal.

Having looked at the letter and the enclosed Bradford Law Centre letter, it is clear that Mr Wooff has in fact now decided not to apply for an oral hearing under the leave to apply in the Order of 10 October 1994. The Order of 10 October 1994 will therefore stand with the consequence that his Appeal remains dismissed.