[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Michael Hopkins Architects & Ors v. Flamma-Hill [2000] EAT 454_99_1201 (12 January 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/454_99_1201.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 454_99_1201

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: This case comes before us today for disposal. There are two appeals before us, whose numbers are EAT/872/99 and EAT/454/99.

1. The parties to the appeals in the proceedings before the Employment Tribunal are Michael Hopkins Architects and Others and a Miss Flamma-Hill. Both appeals related to what can be broadly described as "procedural matters".
2. The first appeal in time was that by Miss Flamma-Hill which related to the questionnaire. I should say at this stage that the underlying proceedings before the Employment Tribunal were claims for unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination.
3. The other appeal which is later in time by the Respondents to the proceedings before the Employment Tribunal was against a refusal of the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal to strike the proceedings out, essentially for failure of Miss Flamma-Hill to provide proper particulars.
4. There is correspondence in the bundle before us which shows that the underlying proceedings before the Employment Tribunal have been settled and consequently stayed. The Order staying those proceedings is dated 29 June 1999. It is signed by the Chairman and was sent to the parties on 30 June 1999.
5. Since that time efforts have been made both by this Tribunal and the employers to contact Miss Flamma-Hill in relation to the appeals. Those have proved to be unsuccessful and in those circumstances Solicitors acting on behalf of the employers have indicated that they wish this Tribunal to dismiss both appeals and to save costs they would not be attending. It seems to us that that is a sensible and correct course for those Solicitors to have adopted.
6. The proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, having been settled there is nothing for these two procedural appeals to bite on and we dismiss both of them.