[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Taukoorchand & Anor v St Helier NHS Trust [1998] UKEAT 244_98_1509 (15 September 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/244_98_1509.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 244_98_1509

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR B BANERJEE (of Counsel) Messrs Saujani & Co Solicitors Suite 213 2nd Floor Signal House Lyon Road Harrow Middlesex HA1 2AQ
For the Respondents	MRS L M MILLIN (of Counsel) Messrs Capsticks Solicitors 77-83 Upper Richmond Road London SW15 2TT


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): Mr Banerjee on behalf of the appellants has asked for an adjournment of this matter because he recognises that the information available to the court to assess the first question which falls for consideration on an appeal of this sort, namely, whether a full and honest explanation for the delay has been tendered, is less than complete. It is the case for the appellants that a Notice of Appeal was sent to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 3rd February 1998. That is supported by an extract from the post book which simply says "Tribunal Employment" without identifying the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and without identifying the case to which that entry relates. I indicated to Mr Banerjee that I imagine that his solicitors would have documentation in the clients' file which will establish whether the Notice of Appeal was drafted in January, whether clients' instructions were taken, how the bill was drawn if bill was required and other notes of telephone calls or attendance notes, all of which would or might go to show whether I have been provided with a full and honest explanation.

The position of the respondent to this appeal is that whatever proof they provide, in any event, there is no case for extending time. I am not prepared to deal with that submission bearing in mind their other submission which is that they are not content for me to deal with this case on the basis that they are forced to accept the truth of the averment that the Notice of Appeal was sent to us on 3rd February 1998.

That being so, in my view Mr Banerjee is entitled to ask for an adjournment. Provided that the costs thrown away by this adjournment are paid, I can see no prejudice to the respondents. It seems to me that the responsibility for those costs falls upon the solicitors who could and should have provided the Employment Appeal Tribunal with full information so as to comply with the requirements of the guidelines set out in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar.

Accordingly, I make an order that there be an adjournment of this appeal, with costs of today thrown away by this adjournment to be paid by the appellants. That is the form of the order I make, but I understand that those costs will have to be paid by the solicitors or legal advisers in due course. I will direct that those costs be taxed if not agreed.