[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bellas v. Merseyrail Electrics [2002] UKEAT 0641_01_1707 (17 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0641_01_1707.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 0641_01_1707, [2002] UKEAT 641_1_1707

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE NELSON

1. This is the full hearing of an appeal by Mr Bellas in respect of which permission to appeal was given by the President on 5 October 2001. When permission to appeal was granted on of the orders which was then made was as follows:

"THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER DIRECTS that documents to be available at the full hearing must include all documents relating to the terms and conditions of the Appellant's service and to any terms agreed to in relation to his earlier redundancy or as to his moving either his place of work or of residence in consequence of or to avoid that earlier redundancy."

2. The Tribunal further ordered that if the parties were not able to agree a bundle of documents, which had to contain the matters just referred to, then it was to be the responsibility of the employers, the Respondents, Merseyrail Electrics, to provide the bundle for both the Appellant and for the Tribunal.
3. Although the Respondents have in fact produced a Skeleton Argument in writing, making their submissions that this appeal should be dismissed and that there is no merit in it, they have not produced any documentation, nor has the Appellant.
4. It is not possible in the circumstances for this Tribunal to determine the matters before it without the presence of either party. Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent has attended. It was thought that the Appellant was going to but no Skeleton Argument has been served by him and it is not his intention to appear today. The Respondents say in their Skeleton Arguments that they do not intend to appear.
5. That places this Tribunal with the difficulty that neither of the submissions earlier made by the Appellant, nor the submissions made by the Respondent can be dealt with because the factual basis which would have been provided by the documents is simply not before the Tribunal.
6. It is therefore necessary that two matters are dealt with. Firstly, the Appellant must state whether he wishes to pursue the appeal or whether by failing to put in a Skeleton Argument and by failing to attend he no longer wishes to pursue it and in fact wishes to withdraw it.
7. Secondly, if it be the case that the appeal is not withdrawn the Respondents must prepare, either with the Appellant, or if necessary by themselves, a bundle of documents satisfying the Order of 5 October 2001made by Lindsay J.
8. In any event, the Respondent should explain why they are in clear breach of that order in failing, in the absence of agreement with the Appellant, to provide the bundle for the Court.