BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Summerfield Group Ltd v Lee [1996] UKEAT 1077_95_1302 (13 February 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1077_95_1302.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1077_95_1302 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR J BEENY
(Director)
For the Respondent MR L D SCALLY
(Employment Consultant)
First Legal
259 Woodchurch Road
Prenton
Wirral
Merseyside
L42 9LE
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): Leave is granted to Summerfield Group Limited to withdraw their appeal against the Registrar's order by which they were refused an extension of time. The consequence is that the appeal is dismissed.
The only remaining matter is an application by Mr Scally, on behalf of Mr Lee, for an order for costs under Rule 34 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules. The tribunal can award costs if any proceedings were unnecessary, improper or vexatious, or there has been unreasonable delay or other unreasonable conduct in bringing or conducting the proceedings.
On this matter, I have heard submissions from Mr Scally in support of an application for costs and expenses. In my view, it is not appropriate to award costs in this matter. The appeal has been withdrawn, but after a detailed discussion from which it appeared that there had been some degree of misunderstanding on the part of Mr Beeny about the action of the tribunal in sending the decision in this case to Summerfield Resources Limited instead of to him. He now appreciates the correct position, and accepts that there is no point in pursuing this matter. I have also taken into account, on the question of costs, the fact that payment has in fact been made, after the taking of County Court proceedings, of the amount of the award which the Industrial Tribunal made in favour of Mr Lee. In those circumstances I do not exercise the discretion to make an order for costs against Summerfield Group Limited.
The only order is that leave is granted to withdraw the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
