Appeal No. EAT/491/00
		EAT/492/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 29 September 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR I EZEKIEL

LWL LANDSCAPES LTD 	APPELLANTS
LWL NURSERIES LTD

MR S A GRIEG	RESPONDENTS
MR J C MARTIN

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION 
BY OR ON BEHALF OF 
THE APPELLANT	

JUDGE PETER CLARK

1.	Mr Kristian Laws ran a number of businesses.  Material to these two appeals were the companies LWL Nurseries Ltd (Nurseries) and LWL Landscapes Ltd (Landscapes).  The businesses ran into financial difficulties and effectively ceased trading on about 31 August 1999. 

2.	On 23 September 1999 Mr Clifford Martin presented an Originating Application to the London (S) Employment Tribunal, complaining of arrears of pay, breach of contract and redundancy constructive dismissal.  He named as his employer Kristian Laws, LWL Nurseries.  He gave as his dates of employment April 1997 to 26 August 1999.  He was a nursery worker.

3.	On 18 October 1999 Mr Simon Grieg presented an Originating Application to the same Tribunal, complaining of illegal deductions from wages and unfair (constructive) dismissal.  He named as his employer LWL Landscape Consultants, gave his dates of employment as 9 January 1994 to 31 August 1999 and described himself as Project Manager.

4.	Notices of Appearance were entered to both claims.  

5.	Both cases were listed before an Employment Tribunal chaired by Mr  D N Martin sitting at Croydon on 9 February 2000.  Both Applicants attended, Mr Grieg in person and Mr Martin represented by his mother, Mrs Martin.  There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondents.

6.	The Tribunal, by a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 16 February 2000 found as a fact that Mr Grieg was employed by Landscapes and Mr Martin by Nurseries.

7.	They went on to find that Mr Grieg had been unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and that Mr Martin had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded compensation in respect of those and other claims brought by the respective Applicants.

8.	On 28 March 2000 a Notice of Appeal purporting to be lodged, on behalf of Landscapes, in the case of Mr Grieg was received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  On 31 March 2000 a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Nurseries in the case of Mr Martin was received.

9.	So far as the Landscapes appeal is concerned, we understand that the Company was the subject of a winding-up order made in the Guildford County Court on 20 July 1999.  The Official Receiver has been appointed Liquidator of that Company.  He has not, so far as we are aware authorised or supported this appeal.  Consequently it will be dismissed.  We have considered the letter from Mr Grieg to the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 4 May 2000 in which he asserts that he was not employed by the Company in liquidation but by LWL Landscape Consultants.  That was not the finding of the Employment Tribunal and there is no appeal by Mr Grieg against that finding.  Time for any such appeal has now expired.

10.	In the case of Mr Martin, it appears that although winding up petition was presented in the Guildford County Court in September 1997 that petition was subsequently withdrawn or dismissed.  We take that from a letter from the Insolvency Service received at the Employment Appeal Tribunal by fax on 27 September 2000.

11.	 In these circumstances so far as we are aware there is an extant appeal by LWL Nurseries Ltd.

12.	The case has been called on today but nobody has attended to prosecute that appeal.  We understand Mr Laws is receiving medical treatment in the United States of America.

13.	In these circumstances we have proceeded to consider this appeal on the papers. The Notice of Appeal raises the following grounds:

(1)	Mrs Martin, that is the Applicant’s mother and representative had agreed settlement before the hearing.

(2)	the Company was told by an officer of the Tribunal that the hearing date was postponed and therefore did not appear and were not able to detail their case in person.  It’s the best reading we can give to it.

14.	Dealing with those two points there is no material before us to suggest that the case had been compromised before the hearing.  We bear in mind the limitations on Applicants contracting out of their rights under the Employment Protection Legislation in the absence of an ACAS COT 3 form or an agreement complying with Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, neither of which had put before us.  We are unable to accept that first ground of appeal.

15.	Similarly there was no material before us to suggest that this Tribunal hearing was postponed or that an officer of the Tribunal wrongly told the Appellant company that the hearing had been postponed.  On the contrary it is pellucidly clear that the Tribunal was convened and both Applicants parties attended the hearing on 9 February 2000 without any suggestion that it was to be postponed.

16.	Thus, having considered the 2 grounds of appeal, we find that there is no arguable point of law there raised and our jurisdiction being limited to correcting errors of law we shall dismiss the appeal in LWL Nurseries -v- Martin also.