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 >> Fulton Holdings Ltd v. Akori [1999] UKEAT 319_99_2505 (25 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/319_99_2505.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 319_99_2505 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAROLD WILSON
MR J R CROSBY
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MS BARBARA WATSON (Representative) |
JUDGE HAROLD WILSON: This is the preliminary hearing of a proposed appeal by the respondent Company against a decision by the Chairman sitting alone that there had been unauthorised deduction from the applicant's wages of the sums set out in the decision.
The applicant appeared at the Employment Tribunal in person and there was no appearance by the respondent. It was plain from a letter dated 8th January 1999, that the respondent Company had received the Notice of Hearing in good time but had failed - so it asserted - to realise "that a hearing date was applicable".
Following the receipt of the decision and extended reasons, the respondent Company entered an appearance and the matter was set down for a preliminary hearing upon compliance by a representative of the respondent Company with a direction issued by the President concerning the filing of an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal's Practice Direction.
The affidavit was sworn by Barbara Watson, an administrator employed by the respondent Company, who appeared today to conduct the preliminary hearing on behalf of the respondent Company. We noted that, in her letter of 8th January 1999, Barbara Watson had stated that enquiries from the Employment Tribunal should be directed to Fulton Motors Ltd as regards the employment of the applicant. We also noted that in the fourth paragraph of her affidavit Barbara Watson had averred that the applicant's main employment was within the computer business and that she had located a contract of employment between the applicant and Fulton Business Equipment Ltd. There was no explanation of this discrepancy nor was there any acceptable explanation for the failure to enter an appearance in the first place.
In the foregoing circumstances, this appeal is without merit and has no reasonable prospect of success upon full argument. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
