[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hamm v Wear Valley District Council [1997] UKEAT 777_96_0502 (5 February 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/777_96_0502.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 777_96_0502, [1997] UKEAT 777_96_502

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: Mr Hamm appeals against an order made by the Registrar on 8 October 1996, refusing his application for an extension of time in which to file his notice of appeal. He appealed against a decision of the Newcastle Industrial Tribunal sitting on 23 February 1996, whereby his claims of race and sex discrimination (Case Nos: 62753/93 and 55118/93) brought against the Respondent, were dismissed on the grounds that each was time-barred. A further complaint of racial discrimination (Case No: 41416/95) was permitted to proceed to a full hearing. The Industrial Tribunal's Extended Reasons for that decision were promulgated on 22 April 1996. His Notice of Appeal was lodged with this Tribunal on 24 June 1996, some 23 days outside the 42 day time limit imposed by Rule 3(2) of The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993.

Exercise of Discretion

The principles upon which the Employment Appeal Tribunal will exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not to extend time for lodging a Notice of Appeal are set out by Mummery J in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65, 71B - 72C. We bear those principles in mind in considering this appeal.

Grounds for Extension of Time

This appeal is opposed by the Respondent, who does not appear today, but we have taken into account written submissions lodged by the Respondent and dated 17 January 1997.

The Appellant's grounds for an extension of time are set out in his letters to this Tribunal dated 23 September and 2 October 1996 and are principally these:

(1) He was undergoing hospital treatment during the relevant period of time for appealing, and

(2) He was seeking assistance in his appeal from his Trade Union and others.

Conclusion

We are not satisfied that the Appellant has advanced any good excuse for lodging his appeal out of time. We bear in mind that the Tribunal decision appealed against was itself an order dismissing his Originating Applications on the grounds that they were out of time and so he must have been very well aware of the importance of the time limits.

Further, he wrote a letter to the Newcastle Industrial Tribunal on 2 May 1996, indicating among other things his intention to appeal to this Tribunal. We see that he is a prolific correspondent and there seems to us no good reason why he did not put in his appeal in time.

In these circumstances our view is that this is not an exceptional case in which we should extend time. Accordingly the appeal against the Registrar's decision is dismissed.