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 >> Khurana & Anor (t/a Gooday Leathergoods) v Scott [1995] UKEAT 539_93_1805 (18 May 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/539_93_1805.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 539_93_1805 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MR J A SCOULLER
MR N WILLIS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr & Mrs Khurana trading as Gooday Leathergoods against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 18 June 1993. The Tribunal heard a claim made by Mrs Scott; her claim was for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal unanimously decided that Mrs Scott was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent Employer, but she contributed to her dismissal to the extent of one-third. Mr & Mrs Khurana were dissatisfied with the decision, having examined the Full Reasons notified to the parties on 24 June 1993. They therefore appealed by a Notice of Appeal dated 6 July 1993. The position today is that Mr & Mrs Khurana have not attended to argue their appeal. There has been correspondence between the Employment Appeal Tribunal and them since last August, attempting to fix a convenient date for hearing. They were notified on 16 August 1994 that the case was in the warned list for October, at an estimated time of hearing. It was not heard then. They were sent a letter on 2 December, enquiring whether they intended to proceed with the appeal. There was no response to that. They were sent a letter on 21 February, referring to the earlier correspondence and stating: "unless I hear from you by 8 March, I propose to list the appeal for disposal by this Tribunal."
Nothing further has been heard. In those circumstances we can only conclude that the Appellants no longer intend to pursue the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.
