Appeal No.	 EAT/1375/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 April 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MRS R A VICKERS

MISS S JAUAD	APPELLANT

LUDICKE LIMITED & NEEDHIGH LIMITED	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS S DREW
(of Counsel)
Instructed By:
Jonathan Cowan
Solicitor
Camden Community Law Centre
2 Prince of Wales Road
London
NW5 3LG	
For the Respondents	MR S GOLDHILL
(Solicitor)
Messrs Rosenblatt
Solicitors
9-13 St Andrew Street
London
EC4A 3AE	

	JUDGE D M LEVY QC:     In a hearing before the Industrial Tribunal at London (North) on 30 September 1996, the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the originating application brought by Miss Jauad should be amended to include a company, Needhigh Ltd, as a third Respondent.

	The Tribunal found that Miss Jauad was unfairly dismissed and ordered that the Respondents jointly and severally pay to the Applicant the sum of £2,141 by way of compensation, and there were other findings as against the Respondents, reflected in the further orders.

	From the decision the Appellant wished to appeal and lodged a Notice of Appeal in due time in accordance with the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules (1993) (“the Rules”).  Having heard submissions from Ms Drew, on behalf of the Appellant on the ex-parte procedure, we have determined that the appeal should go ahead.

	However, there was an application by Mr Goldhill, on behalf of the Respondents, to seek to cross-appeal on grounds that the Industrial Tribunal should not have found against all three Respondents who are named in the appeal.  We have asked Mr Goldhill what facts were wrongly found by the Tribunal or what issues of law arose, so that we can consider better whether to accede to his application that a cross-Notice of Appeal should be allowed out of time.  Unfortunately for him, he is unable to give us an answer to the questions.

	Appeals must be lodged in due time in accordance with the Tribunal’s regulations.  When they are lodged, the appeals come up to this Tribunal on an ex-parte basis to see if there is any merit in the appeals.  We see no merit at all in allowing a cross-appeal to go ahead out of time for which no grounds are shown and no justification for the appeal being lodged out of time.

	In the findings of the Industrial Tribunal in their Extended Reasons it is quite clear why each of the three Respondents are jointly and severally liable, and no issue of law and no facts were raised from anything that Mr Goldhill said to suggest to us that there is anything in a cross-appeal.  It would therefore be wrong to allow the cross-appeal to be lodged out of time.

	In the circumstances, we will not allow there to be a cross-appeal in this case.