[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shaw v Memco Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1199_98_1709 (17 September 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1199_98_1709.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1199_98_1709

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondents	MS A PROOPS (of Counsel) Instructed by: Ms L Atherton Legal Adviser Engineering Employers Federation Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This appeal was launched by the appellant by Notice of Appeal dated 14th September 1998. The grounds of appeal were said to be that:

"The Tribunal failed to give adequate explanation for reducing the award by 50%, and in any event did not on a finding of fact justify such a reduction."

That does not tell us very much about the basis for the appeal. However, we see that on 25th January 1999 the matter came before a division of this Appeal Tribunal, presided over by Judge Colin Smith QC, and on that occasion the appellant was represented by Ms Tess Gill of Counsel. The tribunal allowed the matter to proceed to a full hearing, although there is no judgment that was given on that occasion to explain precisely the basis on which the matter was allowed to proceed.

The appellant then instructed solicitors, Messrs Harris & Cartwright and for that purpose, we are told, he received the assistance of Legal Aid. The full appeal was listed for hearing today. However, on 9th September faxes were received both from Harris & Cartwright and from the appellant himself, asking for an adjournment of this hearing on the basis that Legal Aid had been suspended and that a hearing was awaited before the Legal Aid Committee with a view to seeking to have Legal Aid reinstated. The earliest hearing date for the Legal Aid assessment was originally 30th September, but the earliest possible date was said to be 17th September, today that application for an adjournment was put before the President, Mr Justice Morison. On 9th September the Registrar wrote to the appellant informing him that:

"The application to adjourn the hearing listed for 17th September had been put before the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal who has refused the application. He further directs that if you want to pursue this application you must make it at the hearing."

In these circumstances Mr Shaw comes before us today to renew his application for an adjournment. He does not appear to have any papers, no doubt they are with his solicitor, and he says that he wishes to have the advantage of representation by solicitors and counsel with the assistance of Legal Aid or failing that, he will seek to make other arrangements to ensure that he is represented. The amount of money involved in this appeal is something in the order of £5,000.

The application is firmly resisted by Miss Proops on behalf of the respondent. They are here today. They have incurred expense. She says that it is for the appellant to make arrangements for his representation.

We have set out the background to this matter in some detail because it seems to us that through no fault of his own the appellant appears today unprepared to pursue his appeal and in circumstances where we are, at the moment, unable do discern precisely what the point in the appeal might be, although we see that our colleagues thought that an arguable point of law arose.

A further question arises as to the respondent's costs. They were required to be here. They are represented by solicitor and counsel and if the adjournment is granted then those costs will be thrown away. Who is to pay those costs?

In all the circumstances, we have reluctantly reached the conclusion that the interests of justice require that this appeal be adjourned. So far as the respondent's costs thrown away are concerned, they will be reserved to the final hearing of this appeal on which occasion, assuming that Mr Shaw is represented, his Counsel will be able to make representations on his behalf. In these circumstances the appeal is adjourned to a date to be fixed.