[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Harris v Hart [1999] UKEAT 1341_98_0105 (1 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1341_98_0105.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1341_98_0105, [1999] UKEAT 1341_98_105

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal from a refusal by the Registrar to extend time for lodging a Notice of Appeal. Her Order is dated 7^th January 1999.

1. It records that the decision was arrived at on the basis of letters from the prospective Appellant, Mr Harris dated 30^th November , 18^th and 31^st December. The Employment Tribunal decision against which Mr Harris wishes to appeal was entered in the Register and sent to the parties on 1^st July 1998. By their decision the Tribunal upheld Mr Hart's complaint that he was entitled to a redundancy payment from Mr Harris and pay in lieu of notice. The total sum awarded was £1,320. Each of the parties appeared before the Tribunal in person
2. When the decision was sent to the parties it would have been accompanied by a leaflet which fully explains how an Appeal is lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Despite the clear terms in which it is expressed, it would appear from what the Appellant is saying that he wrote to the Employment Tribunal indicating that he was appealing. There is a letter dated 13^th July 1998 which was sent by Mr Harris to the Industrial Tribunals at Southgate Street, for the attention of Mr Wilkinson. It is dated 13^th July and says:

"I am appealing against your judgment in the above ruling, where you found in favour of Mr Hart."

3. It was not entirely clear to me, as I am sure it was not to the Employment Tribunal as to whether the Appellant was simply notifying the Industrial Tribunals that he was appealing, or whether he was purporting to exercise his right of appeal by writing to the Tribunal which had given the decision against him.
4. On 24^th July 1998 the Tribunals replied saying that an Appeal lies to the Employment Appeal Tribunal giving the name and address of this Court and copying the correspondence to Mr Hart. Nothing happened so far as the Employment Appeal Tribunal was concerned until the 30^th November 1998. What he said was this:

"I lodged my Appeal within the time scale required and sent it to Bury St Edmunds. I assumed the reason why I didn't hear from Mr Wilkinson of the Bury St Edmunds Tribunal for so long, was because they had a backlog of work. When I became concerned at the amount of time that passed, I phoned Bury St Edmunds for an explanation. They explained that they had written to me sometime, against stating that I had to lodge my appear with you, at Victoria Embankment. I pointed out that I had never received such a letter and enquired whether they had enclosed my appeal statement with the letter. It was told that they had not posted my appeal back to me and that they still held at the papers at Bury St Edmunds. I then asked why they had not sent my appeal back to me with the alleged letter. It seems very strange to me that they claimed to have written to me but admit to still having my appeal papers at Bury St Edmunds. I also asked that as they still held my appeal papers, why did they not forward them onto you? They were unable to answer either question. I immediately telephoned Mr Valentino (he is an associate employed at the EAT) for advice and was to told to get my appeal papers back from Bury St Edmunds and forward them immediately to him and he would accept the date stamp for Bury St Edmunds as proof that I had appealed in the allotted time.

I therefore wish to apply for extended time in which to enter my Notice of Appeal."

5. That application was supported by a letter of 31^st December giving further details of why he says that the Tribunal's decision in substance was wrong. He says that there has been deceit in this case perpetrated by the Applicant.
6. The Appellant has not turned up to argue his Appeal because he has had to attend to family matters. We received a fax dated 25^th May 1999 to that effect and of course, as is his right, he is entitled to have his Appeal considered on the papers. I should make it plain that I have considered both that fax and all the other documents available to me. The first question I must ask myself is whether I have been provided with a full and honest explanation and secondly, whether that explanation excuses the delay and thirdly, generally, in the exercise of my discretion should I extend time.
7. On the first question, I have to say that I am not satisfied that I have been provided with a full explanation as to what has occurred in this case. It appears to be the contention of the Appellant that he never received the letter dated 24^th July 1998 indicating that he had to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
8. Secondly, it is not explained how it comes about that despite the leaflet, the Appellant wrote to the Employment Tribunal rather than to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which is identified in that leaflet and where the address is stated.
9. Thirdly, it seems to me that I have not been provided with any explanation as to why the Appellant left it so long before contacting the Employment Tribunal. On his case, he had written on 13^th July and had heard nothing since then. In his letter of 30^th November 1998, he does not indicate when it was that he had his conversation with the Employment Tribunal. It was his duty to get the Notice of Appeal to us within the 42 day period from the date when the Tribunal decision was sent to him, but it does not appear to me that he has taken any proper steps to ensure that that had happened, even forgiving him for the first mistake which he made which was to communicate with the Employment Tribunal first.
10. The Appeal was lodged some 83 days out of time. The interests of Justice require the time limit of 42 days should be regarded as a limit of time and not a target to be aimed at, because it is not just the interests of the Appellant which must be borne in mind but also, the interests of the other party to the litigation, together with a wider interest of the public more generally, that appeals should be lodged timeously with the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
11. It seems to me that if I was required to take into account the merits of the Appeal there is something to be said for a further investigation of the facts on the basis of what we have been told but it does seem to me that the question I have got to ask myself is whether, in all the circumstances, I should extend time for an Appeal to be lodged in this case. For the reasons that I have attempted to give I am not prepared to exercise my discretion, in essence, because I am not satisfied that the Appellant has taken all reasonable steps to get his Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal within due time. In those circumstances, the Appeal will be dismissed.