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 >> Drake & Anor (t/a Procuts, A Partnership) v Lowes [1998] UKEAT 916_98_0107 (1 July 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/916_98_0107.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 916_98_0107, [1998] UKEAT 916_98_107 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MRS J M MATTHIAS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellants | NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS |
| For the Respondent | NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against an Industrial Tribunal's persistent refusal to postpone a remedies hearing which is due to take place tomorrow. The argument in favour of having a postponement is that there is an appeal lodged against the Tribunal's substantive decision which we should hear and determine before the Industrial Tribunal resumes sitting and concluding their deliberations.
If we were to accede to that argument there would then be the possibility of there being two appeals in relation to this one particular claim, because if we were to dismiss the appeal in due course and the remedies hearing took place with which the Appellants were dissatisfied, then one might find that we were having to deal with that second appeal. That is not satisfactory.
It seems to us that the proper course is for the Industrial Tribunal to complete its deliberations on this case, including their deliberations on remedy. We see no good reason for a postponement of that. If the Appellants are dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal on the remedies hearing then of course they can appeal and that appeal will be taken together with their appeal against the original decision. In that way we will have one appeal effectively against the Tribunal's decision.
Accordingly we see no good reason why we should allow this appeal. There has been nothing put before us to suggest that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was other than one which they were entitled to make in the exercise of their discretion. Accordingly the appeal will be dismissed.
