[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Holmesdale Park Ltd v Kamaluddin [2002] UKEAT 1272_98_2201 (22 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1272_98_2201.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1272_98_2201

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondent	MR THOMAS KIBLING (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Ms K Clark Legal Officer UNISON 1 Mabledon Place London WC1H 9AJ


 


MR RECORDER BURKE QC

1. In this appeal there has been no contact between the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Appellant, or the Appellant's solicitors, over a long period.
2. In July or August of this year notice of the date of this appeal was sent to the solicitors for the Appellants. By that time the Appellant's company had been struck off the register. In January of this year the solicitors discovered that the company had been restored to the register on 7^th November of last year, so the company again exists; but it is clear from the solicitor's letter to the EAT of 22^nd January 2002 that the company, having been restored to the register, has made no effort to contact its solicitors; and the solicitors' attempts to contact the company or its prime mover have wholly failed.
3. That situation continued until this morning when we received a message from the solicitors that Mr Sheeka, the company's prime mover, had left a message on the solicitors' voicemail asking that the solicitors contact him and saying that he had just returned from his country. The very fact that he contacted them within the last 24 hours may well indicate that he knew of this appeal date. We should add that nobody has appeared here this morning on behalf of the Appellants although that is not intended as a criticism of the solicitors who are plainly without instructions. The solicitors responded to the voicemail message by phoning the number that had been left; but they got no answer or were unable to communicate with Mr Sheeka.
4. In these circumstances, the absence of anybody on behalf of the Appellant, and again we do not say that in any critical spirit of the solicitors, is unexplained save on the basis that the company through its prime mover are not interested in pursuing this appeal. They are not here; they are not present to present the appeal; and in our judgment, having regard to all the circumstances, this appeal should be struck out.
5. We are grateful to Mr Kibling for attending today even though it may have been apparent that the appeal was unlikely to be heard on its merits. He has submitted that either we should strike out this appeal or we should consider the merits, argued on one side, and dismiss it. We take the view that the latter course is unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. Striking out is the correct course; and that is what in the exercise of our discretion we have decided to do. The appeal will, therefore, be struck out.