[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Personal Development Centres Ltd v Osatch & Anor [1998] UKEAT 1189_97_1703 (17 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1189_97_1703.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1189_97_1703

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P EDWARDS (of Counsel) Messrs Gowen & Stevens Solicitors Surrey House Surrey Street Croydon CR9 1XZ
For the First Respondent For the Second Respondent	IN PERSON MR G KELLY (Managing Director) Computer Insight Ltd 159 High Street Penge London SE20 7EN


 


JUDGE N BUTTER QC: The directions given by the Employment Appeal Tribunal were that skeleton arguments be exchanged at 28 days before the proposed hearing. The skeleton argument presented on behalf of the Appellant was lodged yesterday and the Tribunal is unable to find any record of a fax being received on Friday.

So far as Mr Kelly's position is concerned, it is clear from the documents which we now have that some time ago he did ask that certain documents in our bundle, should be treated as supplemental arguments, in other words, a form of skeleton argument and, therefore, we do not think that criticism should be directed at him.

We are concerned by the very late supply of the skeleton argument on behalf of the Appellant, despite the explanation which has been given and the members of this Tribunal propose to draw to the attention of the President the fact that time and time again the skeleton arguments are not being received when they should be and invite the President to consider whether sanctions should be imposed in the future.

In relation to the problem today, it should be observed however, that fundamentally the skeleton argument drafted by Counsel for the Appellants sets out the matters contained in the Notice of Appeal with some additional argument, but we do not think at present that the contents would have taken Mr Kelly by surprise.

We are prepared to give Mr Kelly a little longer to consider his position to see whether he can identify any particular point in the skeleton argument which he says he will be unable to deal with. Our instinct at the moment is that subject to that the appeal should proceed and we have to have regard to the position of Mr Osatch as well, who would like the matter to be disposed of one way or the other, if possible.

We are not prepared to dismiss the appeal because of non-compliance with the direction. We will consider Mr Kelly's position if he wishes in three-quarters of an hour's time.