[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Druce & Co Ltd v Marcus [1994] UKEAT 824_93_1801 (18 January 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/824_93_1801.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 824_93_1801

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 824_93_1801

Appeal No. EAT/824/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 18th January 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR D O GLADWIN CBE JP

MR J C RAMSAY

---

DRUCE & CO LTD          APPELLANTS

MR S D MARCUS          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR M E TURPIE

(Solicitor)

Messrs Gordons

Solicitors

Winter Hill House

Marlow Reach

Station Approach

Marlow

Bucks

SL7 INT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Druce & Co Limited against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on the 6th and 10th August 1993.

Their Reasons were notified to the parties on the 20th September 1993. The Industrial Tribunal held that Mr S D Marcus had been unfairly dismissed.

On the 12th October 1993 an appeal was presented to this Tribunal by Druce & Co Ltd seeking to appeal the award of £11,640.00 in favour of Mr Marcus on the grounds that there was no sufficient evidence on which the Industrial Tribunal could make certain relevant findings of fact, and on the overall ground that, on such facts as the Industrial Tribunal found, no reasonable tribunal could have found Mr Marcus to have been unfairly dismissed.

Late yesterday afternoon the Solicitors (Gordons) who had been acting for Druce & Co Ltd faxed a letter to the Registrar stating that, despite numerous attempts to obtain instructions in respect of the appeal, no instructions had been forthcoming. The Solicitors therefore apologised to the Tribunal for any inconvenience caused.

Mr Marcus has been notified of this. He states in his letter, in response to the fax, that he is not surprised at Druce & Co Ltd are not prepared to argue the appeal, because he does not believe there is a point of law in it.

This Tribunal has formed the same view as Mr Marcus about the merits of the appeal. This morning Mr Turpie, from Gordons, attended as a matter of courtesy to explain his firm's position.

The Solicitors have no instructions. No one has turned up from Druce & Co Ltd to pursue the appeal. This appeal will be dismissed.