[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Loucaides (t/a Edwards) v Luxton [1997] UKEAT 766_97_0112 (1 December 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/766_97_0112.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 766_97_112, [1997] UKEAT 766_97_0112

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER BEING PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE HARGROVE QC: This is a case where there is an application for an adjournment. It appears that Mr Constantine Loucaides who was a former employee and the son of the director who is appellant in this case was asked to attend these proceedings at short notice. The Company Secretary was due to appear but owing to illness could not attend. Mr Constantine Loucaides says that he anticipated only being in Court for an hour or so, and thereupon, left. He asked us therefore for an adjournment. He does that in writing.

In our view, there is no basis for that at all. If a party is told to attend at this Court he is expected to have sufficient representation to be here until the case is heard.

We turn now to the body of the appeal.

The appellant took no part at all in these proceedings in the sense that, first of all, there was no Notice of Appearance, and secondly, he did not arrive at the tribunal, and therefore made no representations.

His difficulty is this that in fact the IT1 did arrive at his premises, but putting it shortly, he lost it. It was filed away, it was muddled and he said he was tired.

In order that these matters coming before us can be heard at a full hearing, the appellant has to convince us of two things. First, that there is reasonable excuse for the non-entry of an appearance; and secondly, that there is a reasonably arguable case.

In our view, this matter fails completely on the first ground. There was no reason at all apart from a degree of ineptitude in management which accounts for the failure to respond to the IT1, that being so, there is no excuse at all and accordingly, this matter is dismissed.