 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Forster v BSA Foundries Ltd [1992] UKEAT 312_91_1105 (11 May 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/312_91_1105.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 312_91_1105 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE N HAGUE QC
MR T S BATHO
MR A FERRY MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO ATTENDANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondents NO ATTENDANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
JUDGE HAGUE: This is an appeal brought by Mr Forster against his claim for unfair dismissal by his then employers BSA Foundries Ltd. His claim was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on an interlocutory application because notwithstanding several orders for him to produce documents and so forth, he had not done so. The same went for another employee Mr Jackson who was similarly dismissed.
The same solicitors acted both for Mr Jackson and Mr Forster in connection with their claims. Mr Jackson's appeal has been withdrawn and disposed of by agreement between Mr Jackson and the employers' solicitors.
As regards Mr Forster the position is that his solicitors have been unable to contact him at all. Furthermore, and we think this is of importance and reflects credit on the employers, they took steps themselves to try and trace Mr Forster by themselves instructing a private detective agency. That agency has reported by a letter dated the 30th March of this year about their efforts to trace Mr Forster. They made reasonable enquiries, and they also in fact contacted Mr Jackson, but they have drawn a complete blank as to Mr Forster's whereabouts. So they have made every reasonable effort to try and trace Mr Forster.
Quite apart from that, we have read with care the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and we can see no error of law in that decision.
For these reasons we dismiss the appeal of Mr Forster.