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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Johns v Teagle Machinery Ltd [1994] UKEAT 634_93_2806 (28 June 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/634_93_2806.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 634_93_2806 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR T S BATHO
MR E HAMMOND OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR J VEALL
(WORKS MANAGER)
For the Respondents MR J ANTELL
Free Representation Unit
49-51 Bedford Row
London WC1R 4LR
JUDGE LEVY QC: Lewis Charles Johns who is now deceased was employed for many years by Teagle Machinery Limited but a time came when he was dismissed. That decision having been taken, he made a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal which led to a hearing of his complaint before the Truro Industrial Tribunal on 1 July 1993. Their decision was communicated to the parties on 5 July 1993. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Johns had been unfairly dismissed but his losses were reflected in compensation of only £142.37 and it was ordered that the Respondent should pay that sum. The Recoupment Regulations did not apply to the case.
Mr Johns was dissatisfied with the quantum of the result and lodged a Notice of Appeal which is dated 3 August 1993. Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Appeal reads as follows:
"Any communication relating to this appeal may be sent to the Appellant's representative, John Antell, of the Free Representation Unit, 49-51 Bedford Row, London."
Mr Antell was in communication with the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April and May of this year. In April of this year he wrote a letter saying he represented Mrs Edith Annie Mitchell who, on 15 March 1994, was granted letters of administration of the estate of the deceased Appellant. He stated that he was instructed to continue with the appeal. That letter was written from 49-51 Bedford Row, the address of the Appellant given in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Appeal.
Mr Antell sent a further letter to the Tribunal on 25 May on the same headed paper. He wrote:
"I am writing to say that I would be able to appear in this case at short notice except during the month of July 94 and I hope that this might permit the case to be heard at an early date if there is a cancellation.
The deceased appellant's administratrix, whom I represent, is 90 years of age and does not herself intend to attend the hearing."
On 13 June 1994 a notice was sent by the Registrar of this Tribunal to both parties headed "Notice of Hearing" and it reads as follows:
"Take notice that this appeal will be in the list for hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal [and the address is given] not before 11.30 am Tuesday 28th June 1994. The estimated duration of the hearing is half a day and you are required forthwith to notify the Registrar of any matters which may affect the length of the hearing."
Nothing was heard from Mr Antell subsequent to the despatch of that letter but when the matter was called on today just after 11.30 am he was not in Court. Telephone calls resulted in him being located in London though he often works from Somerset. He eventually appeared before the Tribunal at 2 pm and sought an adjournment. Mr Veall who has come all the way from Cornwall today to represent the Respondent had been waiting patiently all morning.
The full amount at stake in this appeal is £1166.00, the total which could have been awarded to Mr Johns. Mr Veall said his is a small Company and if the matter had to be heard again it would cause great inconvenience and the probability was that he would be unable to attend, nor would anyone else come from the Company. It was suggested to Mr Antell that if there had to be an adjournment in these circumstances it might be appropriate for the costs of the adjournment to be borne in any event by the Appellant, whose agent's fault it was that there could not be a contested hearing today. I should add that Mr Antell, when he came at 2 pm, was not in a position to conduct the appeal.
In the circumstances we have considered whether it would be more appropriate to grant an adjournment or to dismiss the appeal, Mr Antell not being able to present it to us today. We have carefully weighed the factors and have come down on balance firmly in favour of dismissing the appeal. In the circumstances, therefore, the appeal will be dismissed.
