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 >> H Marcel Guest Ltd v Barlow & Ors [1995] UKEAT 787_93_2107 (21 July 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/787_93_2107.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 787_93_2107 |
||
[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 D G DAVIES
MRS J A SCOULLER
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF EITHER PARTY
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is a appeal by H Marcel Guest Ltd against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on 21st May and 19th and 20th July 1993.
The Tribunal heard applications for unfair dismissal brought by three applicants against Marcel Guest Ltd, Mr Barlow, Mr Mallard and Mr Mills. The Tribunal held that all three applicants were unfairly dismissed. The company appealed.
The position today is that the company has indicated that it wishes to discontinue the proceedings. As regards Mr Barlow and Mr Mallard, their consents have been obtained to the withdrawal of the appeal, and no further order is required in their cases.
In the case of Mr Mills, attempts have been made by the Tribunal to contact his representative, Mr Pearson, in order to find out whether or not he consents to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The current position is that a letter was sent to Mr Pearson, who is a solicitor, and is believed to be a friend of Mr Mills. The letter was sent on 9th June 1995 stating that the matter would be set down for hearing today. The letter has been returned to the Tribunal with this statement on the envelope "J Pearson - Not Known - Returned". In those circumstances it has not been possible to obtain Mr Pearson's consent on behalf of Mr Mills to this appeal being withdrawn.
The order we propose to make, in order to meet the wishes of the appellants and to protect the position of the respondent, Mr Mills, is this: that the appeal is dismissed upon it being withdrawn by the appellants, but Mr Mills is to have liberty to apply to this Tribunal should he wish to make an application for costs incurred by him on the appeal.
