[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Nicholson v European Land Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) [1996] UKEAT 734_96_0611 (6 November 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/734_96_0611.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 734_96_611, [1996] UKEAT 734_96_0611

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS R DOWNING E.L.A.A.S.


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): If we had the power to change the law, so as to accommodate the appellant in this case, we would have happily done so. We can only deal with cases where there is an arguable point of law arising out of the decision of the Indsutrial Tribunal. The fact is that Mr Nicholson was badly treated by his former employers who went into receivership. He left his employment at the end of August 1992 being owed a significant sum of money. His employers went into receivership. Just over six months after his employment came to an end, he wrote to the receivers having previously spoken to them. Their attitude was that he was not redundant because he had left of his own accord. When he wrote to them he indicated that he was owed a redundancy payment. That was sent in March 1993, which was more than six months after the date when he had left his employment. He did not present a complaint to an Indsutrial Tribunal until 15th February 1996, which was by then, many years out of time.

The statutory provision which governs this matter makes it plain that an employee has to do one of four things within a period of six months, but that he may be excused and bring a complaint late if in the second period of six months he makes a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to his employer, which we are satisfied was done in this case. The letter to the receivers was, I think, a letter to his employer for this purpose. But he must then also either refer to an Industrial Tribunal a question as to his right to or the amount of the payment, or present a complaint relating to his dismissal under Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which is a complaint of unfair dismissal. In those circumstances, a tribunal then has a discretion as to whether to receive the complaint and award a redundancy payment.

In this case because the complaint was lodged with the Industrial Tribunal so late, the tribunal never had any jurisdiction in this case. They were right to decline it. We cannot interfere with their decision. The sad fact is therefore, that Mr Nicholson has been left without any entitlement to a redundancy payment which he otherwise probably would have been entitled to recover.

We are sorry for this result, but as we said at the beginning, we do not have the capacity to change the law, we merely have to apply it as it stands.