[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Quay Plc v Farn [1999] UKEAT 1389_98_0207 (2 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1389_98_0207.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1389_98_0207, [1999] UKEAT 1389_98_207

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OR THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The position in this case is that on 22 April 1999 the Appellant Company was placed in administrative receivership. We have seen a letter to the Registrar from the Receiver dated 29 June 1999, indicating that he does not wish to attend or submit any argument and will accept the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in the matter. In these circumstances, at this preliminary hearing, we have proceeded to consider the appeal on the papers.

1. The Applicant, Mr Farn, commenced these proceedings by an Originating Application presented to the Southampton Employment Tribunal on 16 June 1998. He alleged that he had been employed by the Company from January 1994 to 1 May 1998, when he was dismissed from his post as works co-ordinator. He contended that his dismissal was wrongful (in breach of contract at common law) and unfair. By their Notice of Appearance, the Company submitted that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
2. The matter came before an Employment Tribunal sitting at Southampton under the Chairmanship of Mr M J Davey on 20 July 1998. By a decision promulgated on 30 July 1998 the Tribunal upheld the Applicant's claim in the absence of the Company or any representation on behalf of the Company at the hearing.
3. In their extended reasons for that decision, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been continuously employed by the Company since January 1994. He was dismissed without warning or prior consultation by reason of redundancy on 1 May 1998. There was no evidence as to the basis on which he had been selected, nor was there evidence as to any steps taken by the Company to find alternative employment for him. The dismissal was unfair.
4. Compensation for unfair dismissal was then calculated in the total sum of £5,369.49. The Tribunal's decision having been sent out to the parties on 30 July, the Company made application for a review by letter dated 17 September 1998. That letter sets out the grounds for review available under rule 11(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, but gives no particulars of the factual basis on which the review was sought in this case.
5. By a decision dated 6 October 1998, the Chairman dismissed the review application. His reasons for so doing were:

(1) the application was out of time under rule 11(4) and

(2) no grounds for a review were stated in support of the application.

6. Against that review decision the Company appealed by a Notice dated 8 October 1998. The grounds of appeal are formulated in this way:

"Rule 11(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) were not followed or complied with."

7. In the absence of any argument enlarging on that cryptic statement, we are unable to see any basis in law for interfering with the review decision. The application for review was out of time; no grounds for enlarging time under rule 15 were advanced. Further, no factual basis for a review was stated in the application. In these circumstances we shall dismiss this appeal.