MR M HIGGINS & OTHERS v 1) IPEL LIMITED 2) EPSILON OPTI FILMS UK LTD [2001] UKEAT 1026_00_1709
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant APPELLANTS NEITHER ATTENDING NOR BEING REPRESENTED MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC In this matter we have no appearance by the four remaining Appellants. We do not know why they have chosen not to be here but we do think that had they been here we would have wished to adjourn the Preliminary Hearing in any event in order to satisfy ourselves as to the significance or otherwise of the evidence of Mr Stephen Spellman Oliver and whether indeed he did or did not give evidence as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Notice of Appeal.[2]It may be that the error is merely a mis-description, an error of no substance which does not in any way detract from a decision of the Tribunal.[3]It may be however that the evidence before the Tribunal was insufficient to justify some of the conclusions which appear to have been reached upon it. Accordingly, what we would ask is that the Notice of Appeal be sent to the Chairman and he be invited to give his comments upon paragraph 6(1) of the Notice of Appeal, and if he chooses to do so some indication of whether there has been a mis-description within the Extended Reasons of the Employment Tribunal.[4]Upon receipt of any response (if indeed the Chairman chooses to respond) the Preliminary Hearing will be restored. If the Appellants do not then attend, this hearing will then continue in their absence. Can I also direct that the Chairman provide his notes of the evidence of Stephen Spellman Oliver.