Appeal No.	 PA/73/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 October 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

MR S HIRANI	APPELLANT

DOME COSMETICS LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

APPEAL AGAINST THE REGISTRAR’S ORDER

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	
For the Respondents	THE RESPONDENTS NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This is an appeal against the refusal of the learned Registrar to extend time by one day for the lodging of a Notice of Appeal. 

	The facts are simple. On the last day for lodging a Notice of Appeal the appellant attended at the EAT’s premises in the evening at about 10.30 p.m. in order to put the Notice of Appeal into the building. Unfortunately there is no post box on the outside of the premises, and accordingly, he attempted to insert it between the crack of the doors and did that to the best of his ability. He was seen doing so by a security guard who works in the building next door and has provided a statement confirming the truth of what the appellant, Mr Hirani, has said. 

	It seems to me in those circumstances that it would be quite unfair and unjust if I was not prepared to extend time for the lodging of a Notice of Appeal. I appreciate the argument that it is the parties’ duty to get their documents to us within time and that Mr Hirani left it to the last minute and that he could have sent a fax on the day in question rather than trying to deliver it, but all those matters having been taken into account, and having regard to the letter from Kingsford Stacey Blackwell and their representations as to why the appeal should be dismissed, I am of the view that it would a proper exercise of my discretion to extend time in this case. I therefore do so. As the facts stand, the interests of justice demand that I should.