Temple Security Services Ltd v Chay [1998] UKEAT 814_97_0206 (2 June 1998)

Temple Security Services Ltd v Chay [1998] UKEAT 814_97_0206 (2 June 1998)

The appeal was properly struck out due to clear non-compliance with the EAT order, as the required documents were not exhibited and no adequate enquiries were made. TSL, having prosecuted the appeal unnecessarily and without standing, is liable for costs.

Citation
[1998] UKEAT 814_97_0206
Parties
Appellant: Temple Security Ltd (TSL); Respondent Below: Temple Security Services Ltd (TSSL); Applicant/respondent to Appeal: Mr Chay
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Registrar's Order Striking Out Appeal for Non Compliance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded against TSL
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Racial Discrimination, Unauthorised Wage Deductions, Procedural Compliance, Costs
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Racial Discrimination Unauthorised Wage Deductions Procedural Compliance Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Temple Security Ltd (TSL)

Appellant

Temple Security Services Ltd (TSSL)

Respondent Below

Mr Chay

Applicant/respondent to Appeal

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Registrar's Order Striking Out Appeal for Non Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for failure to comply with EAT order
  2. 2 Whether TSL had standing to appeal
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against TSL

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was properly struck out due to clear non-compliance with the EAT order, as the required documents were not exhibited and no adequate enquiries were made. TSL, having prosecuted the appeal unnecessarily and without standing, is liable for costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded against TSL

Orders

  • Appeal against Registrar's order dismissed
  • TSL to pay Mr Chay's costs in the appeal, including the substantive and Registrar's order appeals