[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gould & Ors v Yardley Of London [1996] UKEAT 515_96_1012 (10 December 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/515_96_1012.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 515_96_1012

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR J P WAITE (of Counsel) Littleton Chambers 3 King's Bench Walk North Temple London EC4Y 7HR
For the Respondents	MR M KURREIN (of Counsel) Messrs Palmers Solicitors 19 Town Square Basildon Essex SS14 1BD


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by employers against a decision of the Registrar who extended time for the putting in of a Notice of Appeal on behalf of four appellants.

The facts relating to this appeal are as follows. By a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 13th November 1995, the unanimous decision was that none of the applicants was unfairly dismissed. This decision was sent to the parties on 4th March 1996 and it is from that date that time starts to run.

Mr Waite, who is a member of the Free Representation Unit which to this court's knowledge provides valuable service to litigants and to whom the court is almost always greatly indebted, should have been sent at the same time as his clients a copy of the decision. Through an oversight on their part, he in fact received the decision only on 18th March 1996, thus cutting down the 42 day period provided for an appeal by a fortnight.

The Registrar's decision was given in the absence of the employer's representations, but I approach this appeal on the basis that I must exercise my discretion afresh. Although this is an appeal against the Registrar's decision, since she does not give written reasons for her decision, I must, as I think our rules provide, deal with this as though it were open to me to decide the matter either way, not constrained by her previous decision.

On that basis, it seems to me that although it was regrettable that Mr Waite did not receive the decision until 18th March 1996, nonetheless, he had sufficient time to put in a Notice of Appeal on behalf of his clients. Nothing that I say in this judgment should imply any criticism of Mr Waite as a member of the Free Representation Unit. I quite understand the pressures under which he found himself and the inconvenience that was caused by the Industrial Tribunal's failure, but I must ask myself in accordance with the decision in Abdelghafar, whether a satisfactory reason for the Notice of Appeal being lodged one day out of time, has been advanced. As I see it, the explanation, and the only explanation, can be that Mr Waite received this document two weeks later than he ought to have done. In my view that does not provide a sufficient reason, nor does the fact that he was thereby inconvenienced and had a great deal of other work and time limits in other cases with which he had to comply.

I regret arriving at this decision, but it seems to me that the Free Representation Unit should be judged exactly on the same basis as any law firm. They hold themselves out, quite rightly, as being able to provide a full legal service to those they are willing to represent, and it seems to me, that however unfortunate it is, this is not a case where time should be extended. therefore I allow the appeal against the decision of the Registrar. In my view time should not be extended in this case.