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 £5, 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 >> Johnson & Ors v GEC Alsthom Traction Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1268_95_1609 (16 September 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1268_95_1609.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1268_95_1609 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS Q.C.
MR J R CROSBY
MR D J JENKINS MBE
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANTS
For the Respondents MR N J HORNEY
(Solicitor)
Messrs Nightingales
Solicitors
12 St John Street
Deansgate
Manchester
M3 4DX
JUDGE HICKS Q.C.: We have to deal with what was originally an appeal by ten appellants against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal that their dismissal for redundancy was fair. Seven of the appellants withdrew their appeals, and so far as they were concerned the matter was disposed of by an Order of the Registrar made on 11th September 1996 by consent dismissing their appeals; that has therefore already been disposed of and is not within our jurisdiction. An eighth appellant withdrew by letter from solicitors of 13th September 1996, and we dismiss his appeal on the basis of that letter, that is Mr N Johnson. The remaining two appellants are Messrs Atkinson and Taylor, who have not attended this morning and are not represented; their former solicitors have written to say that they are no longer instructed by those two appellants.
The appeal in terms of the grounds in the Notice is entirely directed to the conduct of the hearing by the Industrial Tribunal and its Chairman; no point is raised in the Notice of Appeal as to the substance of the decision, or as to any misdirection of law or perversity. Misconduct of the hearing is of course an error of law and a ground of appeal, but having read the comments of the Chairman, who deals with in detail and circumstantially all the allegations made, we are satisfied that the grounds of appeal are not made out.
We therefore dismiss the appeal of Messrs Atkinson and Taylor also.
