[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Patterson v Bass Taverns Wales & West [1994] UKEAT 763_93_2102 (21 February 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/763_93_2102.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 763_93_2102

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 763_93_2102

Appeal No. EAT/763/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 21 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC

MR T S BATHO

MR G H WRIGHT MBE

---

MR D PATTERSON          APPELLANT

BASS TAVERNS WALES & WEST          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR G ROBERTS

(SOLICITOR)

Cardiff Law Centre

15 Splott Road

Cardiff

CF2 2BU


 


JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC: This is a Preliminary Hearing in relation to the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Cardiff which held that it had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unfair dismissal because the application was one day out of time.

The grounds of appeal as they stand at the present moment revolve around two aspects, the first is that there was no evidence to support a particular conclusion, the conclusion being that there was no reason why the document should not have been faxed on 17 June which was apparently the day when it was in the hands of the Law Centre. The Tribunal goes on to say that:

"the Applicant has not satisfied us that it was not practicable to have lodged the application earlier".

In our view the first point is bound to fail because that is a conclusion which the Tribunal is entitled to draw. There is no question of there being no evidence to support it. The second matter is upon an even narrower ground that the Tribunal says (in paragraph 3):

"The evidence is that the application was in the hands of the Law Centre in the early afternoon of 17 June."

It has been told to us that the actual time was between 3.45 pm and 3.50 pm. It is said that the decision is flawed upon the basis that cannot be called "early afternoon".

With very great regret we do not think that that can possibly be a ground of appeal. The matters being raised here are purely matters of fact and accordingly there will be no jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.