MR CURRAN T/A WOODLANDS MOTEL & SERVICING v MISS C PEEL [1999] UKEAT 427_99_0610

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 427_99_0610Case No Appeal No. EAT/427/99Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR CURRAN T/A WOODLANDS MOTEL & SERVICINGAPPELLANTMISS C PEELRESPONDENT
Before
Mr Justice Holland Mr A D TuffinDate 6 October 1999
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT MR JUSTICE HOLLAND : This matter is listed before us this morning in these circumstances. We have an appeal from a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Leeds, the decision being by way of Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 22 February 1999. The decision appears from the opening paragraph. It is in these terms:
"The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the Respondent discriminated against the Applicant on the grounds of her sex whilst the Applicant was employed by the Respondent, the Respondent subjecting the Applicant to detriment. It is ordered that the Respondent shall pay the Applicant £4,176.08 compensation."
[2]That decision obtained by way of a response from the then Respondent, a Notice of Appeal received by this Tribunal on 11 March 1999. It is to be observed that that Notice is of the Respondent's own personal composition and it does not purport to raise any point of law as a basis for the appeal. Its contention is that he should have been believed and was not.[3]The matter was accordingly listed for a preliminary hearing before this Tribunal on 16 July 1999. In the event the Respondent, by now the Appellant, had already sent a letter dated 14 July 199 asking for the matter to be adjourned. In response this Tribunal did so adjourn the hearing to today's date, it now being listed before us for a preliminary hearing.[4]We have a further application by the Appellant, this time by telephone, to have the matter further adjourned on the basis that there is some transport problem preventing his attendance.[5]We have, for our part, considered carefully two matters. First, this application for a further adjournment and second and, in any event, the apparent basis for an appeal. We note that there is no apparent basis for the appeal. We note that this is the second occasion upon which there has been an application for an adjournment. In those circumstances our decision is quite clear.[6]First, we refuse the adjournment and secondly, we dismiss the appeal. The basis for the dismissal is, as is already apparent, there simply is no point of law and without a point of law there is nothing that this Tribunal can, or should, do by way of disposal. If we were to adjourn the matter further then we would be occasioning no advantage at all to the Appellant. He would have, as we see it, inevitably yet a further attendance here to no purpose whatsoever.[7]For these reasons this appeal is dismissed and the application for adjournment refused.