Appeal No. EAT/1475/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 12 December 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN
MR A E R MANNERS
MR W MORRIS

MR ANDREW DAVID HENDERSON	APPELLANT

(1) LAVA SYSTEMS (EUROPE) UK LTD (2) OPEN TEXT UK LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NEITHER PRESENT
NOR REPRESENTED	
For the Respondent	NEITHER PRESENT
NOR REPRESENTED	

JUDGE ALTMAN

1.	This is an Appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at Southampton on 18 October 1999 when the decision was reached that the claim against the first Respondent succeeded that they were ordered to pay the Appellant £16,180 and that the claim against the second Respondent was dismissed.  The matter came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 25 February by way of Preliminary Hearing when the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that there was only 1 arguable point of law on the following ground: 

“The failure of the Tribunal to award any damages for the loss of the full notice entitlement, benefit of the motor vehicle and health insurance and insurance benefits.”

2.	The Appellant then appealed the dismissal of the other grounds of appeal.  On 12 July Lord Justice Mummery refused to give leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  The matter then fell to be dealt with before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the single ground of appeal set out in the judgment of His Honour Judge Collins.

3.	The first Respondent is a company which has been in receivership and we can understand that it may be thought that to obtain any further increased judgment against them would be an exercise with no substance.

4.	Having obtained an adjournment of this hearing so that his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal could be heard on 3 August 2000, on behalf of the Registrar a letter was written to the Appellant asking him to confirm within 7 days whether he wished to pursue the appeal.

5.	On 11 August no response having been received, a further letter was written asking him whether he wished to pursue the Appeal and saying that failure to respond may result in the matter being set down for disposal.  A notice of hearing was then sent on 21 August, effectively saying that upon the failure of the Appellant to reply to those 2 letters and subject to a further 7 days for the Appellant to confirm whether he wished to pursue the Appeal, the matter would be set down for disposal.  There has been no further communication from the Appellant.

6.	The matter has therefore been listed before this Tribunal today to consider the question of disposal and we have resolved that the Appeal should be dismissed upon the inference to be drawn from the failure to respond of the Appellant that he does not wish to proceed with it.