[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Robinson v NNC Ltd [1996] UKEAT 772_96_2810 (28 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/772_96_2810.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 772_96_2810

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MRS JUSTICE SMITH: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal from an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Manchester on 28 March 1996. The Tribunal dismissed as out of time the Appellant's claim that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Section 67(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides:

"Subject to subsection (4), an industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the three months beginning with the effective date of termination or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of three months."

The Appellant was employed as a Claims Manager by the Respondents. On 26 May 1995 he was handed a letter telling him that he was to be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. His employment was to end on 26 August 1995. In other words, he was given three months' notice. Before that notice expired and while he was still employed, he was summarily dismissed by a letter dated 14 June and handed to him on 19 June.

The Industrial Tribunal found that the effective date of termination of the employment was 19 June. Thus, any application for a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal should have been presented by 18 September. This application was not presented until 24 November. The Industrial Tribunal concluded that the application was presented two months out of time.

They then went on to consider whether it would have been reasonably practicable for the Appellant to have presented his claim in time. It appears that on 22 August the Appellant had presented a claim for wrongful deduction of wages under the Wages Act. The Tribunal considered that, as the Appellant had been in a position to lodge that complaint, which also arose out of the circumstances of the termination of his employment in time, it would have been perfectly practicable for him to have included his claim for unfair dismissal on the same application form or on an application form lodged at the same time.

Today, on the preliminary hearing of this appeal, the Appellant has not attended. He has sent to the Appeal Tribunal a large bundle of documents and authorities which we have read. He indicated that it would not be possible for him to attend due to his absence abroad. He asked for an adjournment of this hearing but was refused. He was advised that it might be possible for ELAAS to represent him.

This morning, the ELAAS representative has told us that he had read the papers in this appeal in the absence of the Appellant and that there was nothing useful that he would be able to say. That does not surprise this Tribunal. Our own careful examination of these papers has failed to reveal any question of law which could properly be considered at a full hearing. We do not propose to go through the lengthy grounds of appeal which have been advanced. Suffice it to say that the basis upon which the Tribunal reached their conclusion cannot, in our judgment, be criticised.

It follows that this appeal must be dismissed at this preliminary stage.