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 >> Tullett v The Page Group & Ors [1998] UKEAT 792_97_0503 (5 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/792_97_0503.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 792_97_503, [1998] UKEAT 792_97_0503 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR J R CROSBY
MS B SWITZER
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | MR P WARD (Of Counsel) Ms J Armstead Citizens Advice Bureau Town Hall Clarence Road Bognor Regis West Sussex PO21 1LD |
For the Respondents |
MISS D HOLLIMAN (Representative) Messrs Howes Percival Solicitors Oxford House Cliftonville Northampton NN1 5PN |
JUDGE CLARK: Mr Ward applies for an adjournment of this appeal on the basis that he has only this morning been served with the Respondent's Skeleton Argument. He says there are two authorities referred to in that Skeleton with which he is unfamiliar, although this case was not called on until about 11.40 a.m.; sufficient time to read them.
We have come to the conclusion that there is no real prejudice suffered by the Appellant as a result of receiving this Skeleton Argument which is in line with the Respondent's answer and merely takes issue with the proposition that the Industrial Tribunal got it wrong. Nor do we think that the Respondent has obtained an unfair advantage by having been served very properly by the Appellant's side with Mr Ward's Skeleton Argument well in advance of this hearing.
Mr Ward says that rules are rules and he is absolutely right about that. The practice of not complying with the requirements for lodging Skeleton Arguments fourteen days before the full appeal hearing has now reached the stage where it is a rule honoured in the breach more than in the observance. The day will come when we will penalise parties who do not comply with the rule. However, we have to look at each case on its own merits and we have reached the conclusion that there is insufficient prejudice in this case to merit an adjournment. We therefore reject the application and will get on with appeal.
