Appeal No. EAT/22/93
	I N T E R N A L

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 22nd April 1994

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

	MR R JACKSON

	MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

MR A R NOON	APPELLANT

CLARK ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR
REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE OR 
REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

	MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT):  This is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on the 6th October 1992.

	For reasons notified to the parties on 4th November 1992 the Tribunal unanimously decided that the Applicant, Mr Noon, was unfairly dismissed and awarded him the sum of £110.

	There was an appeal against that decision by Mr Noon by Notice of Appeal dated 10th December 1992.  He complained that there was no evidence upon which the Tribunal could reasonably have concluded that his employment would, in the event, be terminated on the liquidation of the Company, and it failed to consider properly whether there had been fair selection of him for redundancy.

	The matter came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a preliminary hearing on the 16th July 1993.  On that hearing Mr Noon was not present or represented but a skeleton argument on his behalf was submitted by the Oldham Law Centre.

	On the basis of submissions in the skeleton argument the Tribunal decided to allow the appeal to proceed to a Full Hearing and ordered the Chairman's Notes of Evidence to be produced. 

	On the 19th October a letter was sent to the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the Oldham Law Centre stating that letters had been written to Mr Noon, but there had been no reply.  He was advised that, if nothing was heard from him, the Law Centre could no longer act in the matter.  This Tribunal was asked to correspond with him direct.  The letter was, therefore, treated as notice by the Law Centre that they were no longer acting for him.

	On the 8th November the Registrar wrote to Mr Noon at his home address enclosing a copy of the letter from the Oldham Law Centre saying that:
		"I have taken the Centre off the record in light of the disclosure in the letter that they cease to act for you."

The Registrar explained that she was writing to him to discover whether or not he wished to pursue the appeal and stated that, if nothing was heard from him in the next 14 days, the case would be referred to a listing officer to fix a date for disposal of the appeal by the full Appeal Tribunal.  There has been no reply to that letter.  Mr Noon has not attended today.

	In those circumstances the Tribunal has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  The appeal is dismissed.