[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jayaratne v London Borough Of Redbridge [1997] UKEAT 325_97_1411 (14 November 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/325_97_1411.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 325_97_1411

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE B HARGROVE QC: The Industrial Tribunal held that the Appellant's claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination against the Respondents were brought outside the time limits and refused to extend the time.

The Appellant was dismissed on 31 January 1994, so the expiry date was 30 April 1994. He says that he was advised by Solicitors to concentrate upon his criminal trial. That trial resulted in the Appellant being sent to prison on 14 February 1996.

It is fair to put this against the background that in 1989 he had the misfortune of his son committing suicide and that he and his family were being counselled at the relevant time.

It seems also that in February 1996 he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. He was sent to Goodmayes Hospital as a sectioned patient and he remained there until May to June 1996.

The Tribunal's findings were in these terms:

"8 The burden of proving that the Tribunal should extend the period for bringing proceedings for unfair dismissal on the grounds that it was not reasonably practicable for the Applicant to bring his claim within the three month period and for extending a claim for race discrimination on the grounds that it is just and equitable, falls on Mr Jayaratne [the Appellant].

9 In reaching its decision the Tribunal took the following matters into account:-

(a) Mr Jayaratne was clearly aware of the three month time limit and until 6 April 1994 when he was arrested he intended to presented an Originating Application to the Industrial Tribunals.

(b) The fax from Mr Jayaratne to his solicitor Mrs Wrench of 18 April 1994 indicates his awareness of the time limit.

(c) The Tribunal will not extend time on the basis that Mr Jayaratne's solicitor advised him to concentrate on other matters. The solicitor was a skilled adviser and should have been aware of the time limit.

(d) Mr Jayaratne did not write to the Industrial Tribunals explaining his predicament nor did he obtain and fill in another originating application form when his first originating application form was confiscated by the police.

(e) Mr Jayaratne was not sent to prison until 14 February 1996 and prior to this date he was not in prison and would have been able to fill in an originating application.

(f) Even after Mr Jayaratne was imprisoned, he still did not present his originating application until 19 September 1996 which was almost two and a half years after the expiry of the three month time limit on 30 April 1994."

Commenting upon the latter, if the dates and times we have been given are right, from February 1996 until May 1996 he was a person under a disability, and therefore it would not be reasonable to expect him to present the Originating Application in that time, but the other points made by the Tribunal seem to us to be without any defect at all.

We have noted all that the Appellant has set forth in his grounds of appeal and have heard submissions before us today. Unfortunately, he has no arguable point. The quotation from the Mortgage Corporation Ltd case has no validity. This is not a case of a Respondent seeking to take a tactical advantage. It is a case of the Appellant failing, not over months, but over years, to launch his proceedings.

Accordingly, there is no arguable case and this matter is dismissed.