 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hawthorne v Russell & Brand Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1105_95_1906 (19 June 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1105_95_1906.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1105_95_1906 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondents MR N CHRONIAS
(Legal Adviser)
EEF
Broadway House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9NQ
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against the Registrar's refusal in an order made on 17 November 1995 to extend the time for Mr Hawthorne to enter a Notice of Appeal. He wishes to appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 2 June 1995.
The Tribunal heard claims by Mr Hawthorne against Russell & Brand by whom he had been employed as a chef. His complaints were of unfair dismissal, racial discrimination and breach of contract. The claims were contested. In the Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 28 June 1995 the Tribunal explained how they had reached the unanimous decision that Mr Hawthorne had been unfairly dismissed, but had contributed to his dismissal. That led to a reduction in his compensation by 90%. He was awarded £166.30, which, we understand, has been paid, though Mr Hawthorne complains that it was paid later than it should have been.
His claim of race discrimination was dismissed in a sentence. The Tribunal said that there was no evidence brought by Mr Hawthorne that there was racial grounds for his dismissal. His claim for breach of contract was also dismissed. Mr Hawthorne decided that he would appeal against the decision. He wrote a letter saying he wished to appeal, dated 10 August 1995, received in this Tribunal on 11 August 1995. It said:
"I have written to you to appeal against the reduction in my compensation from Russell & Brand Ltd.
I also now have a witness who has returned from Trinidad and could not be at the hearing. This witness would prove that the catering manager lied on oath and therefore put his integrity to question.
I hope to resolve this matter without another hearing, but if necessary for my satisfaction, I will proceed."
That was accepted as a Notice of Appeal, subject to an extension of time. The only ground on which he was appealing was the reduction of his compensation. Nothing was said about the dismissal of his claim for race discrimination or for breach of contract.
By way of further explanation of the failure to serve the Notice of Appeal in time, Mr Hawthorne said, in a letter of 15 October to this Tribunal, that he believed that he had sent his appeal well within the required forty-two days, and that the delay must be with the post. He added that, if we do not intend to hear his appeal, we should forward the details on to a higher court.
On the basis of what Mr Hawthorne said in the correspondence, the Registrar refused to grant the extension. Mr Hawthorne was then four days late in appealing against the Registrar's decision. The first submission made by Mr Chronias, on behalf of Russell & Brand, is that I should not hear this appeal at all because it is out of time. I have not heard an explanation from Mr Hawthorne as to why he did not appeal within the time for appealing against the Registrar's order. Mr Chronias further submits that the Registrar was, in any event, correct in refusing an extension of time for the appeal against the Industrial Tribunal's order, for this reason: that there was no valid excuse for the delay. The only explanation provided by Mr Hawthorne is one that does not hold water. That is, that there was a postal delay.
The date on the letter which was sent indicating an intention to appeal and the date on which it was received here demonstrate that the post was not responsible for any delay. The fact is that Mr Hawthorne did not appeal within the forty-two days from the date when the Extended Reasons were sent to him. It was his job to see that the appeal was sent within that time and that it was received here within that time. That was not done. I agree with Mr Chronias that there is no valid excuse for failure to comply with the time limit. I would therefore dismiss this appeal for that reason. I would also dismiss it for the additional reason that, in any case, the appeal against the Registrar's order is late. I have not heard any explanation at all as to why that was late. Time limits are time limits. They are set to be observed. They are strict. They are only allowed to be departed from in rare cases, where a person has a valid excuse for not keeping to the time limits.
A number of other points were raised by Mr Hawthorne. The main ground of his appeal seemed to be that he had a witness from Trinidad, who was not available at the Industrial Tribunal hearing to give evidence. That is not a ground of law for appealing. Mr Chronias also mentioned that Russell & Brand had not provided him with a reference as they should have done. I can find nothing in the Industrial Tribunal decision which requires Russell & Brand to provide him with a reference. Whether he is provided with a reference or not is not a concern of this Tribunal. It is a matter of agreement between Russell & Brand and Mr Hawthorne. For all those reasons I dismiss the appeal against the refusal of the Registrar to extend the time.
I am refusing to grant leave to appeal because Mr Hawthorne has not got any grounds. He can go to the Court of Appeal for leave. They might think differently. The leaflet will explain where to go, what to do and by what time to do it.