Christopher Lunn & Co v Blake [1996] UKEAT 439_93_0502

EAT
Christopher Lunn & Co v Blake
[1996] UKEAT 439_93_0502 · 1996-02-05
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT) : This is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Brighton on 25th November 1992 and 8th January 1993. In full reasons sent to the parties on 25th January 1993, the tribunal explained their unanimous decision that Mrs Fiona Blake had been unfairly dismissed.The employer appealed by a Notice of Appeal dated 9th March 1993. The case was listed for a preliminary hearing on 19th September 1994. The tribunal directed that the appeal should proceed to a full hearing, and made directions for the production of Chairman's notes and the service of affidavit evidence in relation to allegations of bias and exclusion of admissible evidence from the Industrial Tribunal hearing.The Notice of Appeal was amended. There was a delay while the Chairman's notes were produced. After the Chairman's notes were produced, a full skeleton argument in support of the appeal was served. The appeal will not, however, proceed for the following reasons.A letter was written to this tribunal on 2nd February 1996 to say that Mr Lunn, the employer, has become bankrupt and that his trustee in bankruptcy does not intend to pursue the appeal. A letter dated 10th January 1996 written by Mr Donald Jacobs, the trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Lunn to the solicitors for the respondent, says:
"Further to your letter of the 20th December addressed to the Assistant Official Receiver, and our subsequent telephone conversation of the 4th January 1996, I would confirm that at this stage I am not applying to the court to set aside any transactions entered into by the bankrupt, prior to the order being made against him.
I would confirm that I do not intend to appear at the forthcoming hearing of the tribunal. Would you kindly inform your client accordingly."In those circumstances, the appeal is not pursued by the only person who would be entitled to pursue the appeal, namely the trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Lunn. The appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.We have been informed by the solicitors for the respondent that this is the order that they would ask us to make if they attended today. But they are not in attendance, because they wish to save costs.In the absence of representation from either party, and for the reasons mentioned, the appeal is dismissed.