[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd (t/a Stagecoach) v. Hackney [2002] UKEAT 1531_01_1106 (11 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1531_01_1106.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1531_01_1106, [2002] UKEAT 1531_1_1106

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondent	MR G P HACKNEY (the Respondent in Person)


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. I begin with a chronology in this matter. On 28 September 2001 an Employment Tribunal sitting at Manchester upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Mr Hackney, the Respondent to this appeal, against his former employers, the Appellant, Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd t/a Stagecoach Manchester.
2. On 2 November 2001, at a Remedies Hearing, Mr Hackney was awarded compensation totalling £4,885. On 6 November the Appellants, represented by solicitors, sent a Notice of Appeal against the liability decision in this case to the Manchester Employment Tribunal, rather than to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. On 13 November, having realised their error, those solicitors sent a copy of the Notice of Appeal and other documents to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, 4 days out of time, together with an application for an extension of time for appealing, due to what they described as:

"An administrative error"

3. That application was opposed by Mr Hackney and on 6 February 2002 the Registrar refused to extend time for appealing. Against that order the Appellants appealed by letter dated 8 February and on 26 February this interlocutory appeal was listed for hearing today, 11 June.
4. On 10 June, the day before this hearing, the Appellant's solicitors, Weightman Vizards, telephoned and subsequently faxed the Appeal Tribunal indicating that the appeal was withdrawn. Attempts were made to contact Mr Hackney, unsuccessfully, he having set off to a relative's home near London, with his wife, last evening, in order to attend this hearing at the appointed time today.
5. By their fax, those solicitors informed me that they have experienced considerable difficulties in obtaining their Client's instructions. I find that extraordinary, bearing in mind the chronology which I have set out, and their determination to appeal the Registrar's order back in February of this year. Nevertheless, they now have strict instructions not to attend before me today and have not done so. Mr Hackney on the other hand, ably assisted by his wife, has appeared before me. I express my displeasure at the behaviour of these Appellants and their solicitors in waiting until the last minute to withdraw what, in my judgment, was a hopeless appeal in the first place, thereby causing considerable, unnecessary inconvenience to Mr Hackney.
6. In these circumstances I shall dismiss the appeal on withdrawal. Mr Hackney makes application for expenses, being travel expenses incurred by himself and his wife, who, as I have indicated has assisted him in this matter. I have no hesitation in finding, under Rule 34 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal rules, that the Appellant's conducts of these proceedings has been unreasonable in that they waited until the day before this hearing to withdraw their appeal, which, as I have indicated, was in any event hopeless and accordingly I shall order the Appellants to pay the expenses incurred by the Respondent and his wife in the total sum of £73.40. I have been shown copies of their travel documents, which indicate that those sums were expended. Those costs to be paid within 14 days of the date of the sealed order in this case.