BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Staff UK Ltd v Mogridge [1995] UKEAT 527_93_0305 (3 May 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/527_93_0305.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 527_93_0305, [1995] UKEAT 527_93_305 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO ATTENDANCE BY
APPELLANT OR RESPONDENT
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Bristol on 15 April 1993. The Tribunal unanimously decided that the dismissal of Miss Mogridge, the Applicant, by the Respondent, Staff UK Ltd, on 31 October 1992, was unfair. The Company was ordered to pay Miss Mogridge £6,600. The Tribunal notified the parties of the full reasons for the decision on 26 April 1993.
The Company appealed. In a notice of appeal served on 2 June 1993 it is stated as a ground of appeal that the Company's representative at the hearing had been refused an opportunity to cross-examine the Applicant fully on matters relating to the central issues of consultation about redundancy and about the availability of alternative work for her.
It is unnecessary to go into the details of the reasons for the decision because the case has been overtaken by events. The matter that has caused this case to take a different complexion is this. On 25 August 1994 the Company went into compulsory liquidation. A letter has been received from the Official Receiver's Office stating that an investigation of the Company's affairs has taken place and it appears that the Company has no assets and there will be no distribution to creditors. In those circumstances the Official Receiver has decided not to pursue the appeal because that would only increase the costs.
Miss Mogridge was asked whether she consented to the withdrawal of the appeal. A reply has been received from her, dated 5 April 1994, where she states that she will not be able to attend the hearing due to workload commitments, but she asks to be notified as to the outcome of the case.
In those circumstances, it is clear to us that there is no point in this matter proceeding any further. As the Appellant does not intend to pursue the appeal, it is dismissed for want of prosecution.
