[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Kalamaras Ltd v Casanova [1994] UKEAT 51_94_0610 (6 October 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/51_94_0610.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 51_94_610, [1994] UKEAT 51_94_0610

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

 


BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 51_94_0610

Appeal No. EAT/51/94

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 6 October 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC

MR P DAWSON OBE

MR T C THOMAS CBE

---

KALAMARAS LTD          APPELLANTS

MR J CASANOVA          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR T McDONALD

(OF COUNSEL)

Bates Wells & Braithwaite

61 Charterhouse Street

London EC1M 6HA

For the Respondent MISS L WEINSTEIN

(OF COUNSEL)

Free Representation Unit

49-51 Bedford Row

London WC1R 4LR


 


JUDGE HULL QC: We have given this very careful consideration both before we came into the preliminary discussion and then since, in the light of what we have heard. We are not prepared, unless judicial grounds are shown for it, to say that a different Tribunal should hear the matter. It is a very very important principle of law, one of the underlying principles, that parties cannot choose their Tribunal and must take the Tribunal for better or worse which they get. We have not so far heard anything to make us think that this Chairman or her members, or the Tribunal jointly, were guilty of any error which would make it embarrassing for them to continue and in those circumstances, whether this is properly described as an application by consent or an application which is not opposed, all we would be prepared to do is to say what undoubtedly the Tribunal itself would be prepared to say, that in view of the lapse of time and the agreement of the parties it is quite clear that the appearance should be entered.

As to the future progress of the matter we at the moment do not see any ground on which we can interfere or make any Order whether by consent or otherwise with regard to the Tribunal, which is to continue the hearing. If the Appellant wishes to continue with the appeal then so be it, but that is our present view which we individually and separately all feel (if I may say) so strongly about. We do not feel, even by consent, able to do what is suggested here.