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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Dovecrest Developments UK Ltd v Adams [2000] UKEAT 1425_99_1003 (10 March 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1425_99_1003.html
Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1425_99_1003

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


BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 1425_99_1003
Appeal No. EAT/1425/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 10 March 2000

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE COLLINS CBE

MR P DAWSON OBE

MRS D M PALMER



DOVECREST DEVELOPMENTS UK LTD APPELLANT

MR J ADAMS RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

© Copyright 2000


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant
    For the Respondent  


     

    JUDGE COLLINS:

  1. This is an appeal against the decision of an employment tribunal sitting at Shrewsbury, their extended reasons having been promulgated on 19 October 1999. They decided that the appellants had made unauthorised deductions from the respondent's pay in the sum of £363.31 and made an award accordingly.
  2. The respondent had been given a cheque for that amount for work, which had been done and the appellants stopped the cheque. Shortly before the hearing the appellants telephoned the tribunal to say that the relevant director was out of the country and had been since 1 September. It is surprising that that information was given to the tribunal on 27 September because the notice giving the date of the hearing as 1 October had been despatched on 3 September. So the appellants had known for weeks that the hearing was on but did not apply until the last moment for an adjournment. The tribunal made enquiries of the respondent who said he had taken the day off work and accordingly they refused the adjournment. Nobody turned up at the hearing on behalf of the appellants, even though Miss Mollison sent the fax asking for an adjournment, appears to have been in the country and also appears to have known enough about the case to have given particulars to this tribunal of the Notice of Appeal. Nobody has appeared today to prosecute this appeal. There is nothing in the material which has been put before us to suggest that the tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion which it did. Accordingly the appeal will be dismissed.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1425_99_1003.html