[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Claridge (t/a Wealth of Work) v. Saunders & Ors [2000] UKEAT 467_00_0112 (1 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/467_00_0112.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 467__112, [2000] UKEAT 467_00_0112

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT BEING NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE BELL: This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Wealth of Work Ltd or Mr Claridge trading as Wealth of Work Ltd against the decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Southampton on 23rd February 2000.

Mr Claridge and his company have been called outside this court. The case was listed for 10:30. It is now after 13:05, and there has been no response. Earlier this morning there was a communication from Mr Claridge or from someone on his behalf saying that he might be late because of travel problems. As everyone knows there are travel problems at the moment, but it is the duty of people who appeal to this Appeal Tribunal and who must be aware of those problems to make proper arrangements so that they may attend on time. One of the difficulties in Mr Claridge's case is that he failed to attend the hearing before the Employment Tribunal. This is the second time he has failed to attend. We consider that in justice to the respondents to the appeal, the applicants to the Employment Tribunal we should proceed with this appeal on the papers before us, notwithstanding that Mr Claridge is not here.

1. The essential facts are that four applicants, Mr Saunders, Miss Hoare, Mr Allen and Mr Honeyman, made Originating Applications for non-payment and therefore unlawful deductions of wages and Mr Saunders made a complaint of non-payment of holiday pay also. The Employment Tribunal, a Chairman sitting alone, decided that those claims were well founded. He awarded the applicants the wages and holiday pay which were due. Mr Saunders also made a complaint of wrongful dismissal on the basis that failure to pay his due wages was a fundamental breach of contract amounting to constructive and wrongful dismissal. That claim failed.
2. The extended reasons for the Employment Tribunal's decision referred to the Company's assertion that the applicants had taken action to harm the Company, but went on to say that the Company did not seem to appreciate that it could not lawfully withhold wages on the basis of untested assertions which it had not taken court action to assert.
3. We can see nothing wrong in principle or in merit with that approach, especially where, as here, the managing director of the Company, Mr Claridge, who makes the charges of action to harm the Company on the part of the applicants, did not attend the Employment Tribunal hearing but sent his apologies requesting an adjournment so that he could attend and, failing that relief, requesting the tribunal to deny the applicants' claims. The Company was in fact represented by a Mr Gauder, sales director, at the tribunal hearing.
4. The Notice of Appeal from the Employment Tribunal's decision raises various allegations against the applicants, now the respondents to this appeal, but no point of law is alleged to vitiate the tribunal's decision. In communications with this Appeal Tribunal Mr Claridge has said on behalf of the Company that the Company would like to make a counter claim against the applicants. It is far too late to do that in these proceedings, even if there were any meritorious grounds for so doing. The Company, if so advised, can take free-standing court proceedings to pursue any claim against the applicants, if indeed there is any claim with any merit.
5. It seems to us that just as before the Employment Tribunal, so in his written submissions to this Appeal Tribunal, Mr Claridge is failing to appreciate that his company cannot refuse to pay employees or officers the wages and holiday pay which is due merely because he states that they have misbehaved in some respect in relation to the Company. For all these reasons this appeal is dismissed.