[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> McIntyre (t/a Scandals Nightclub Newquay) v Kay [1999] UKEAT 1413_98_0807 (8 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1413_98_0807.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1413_98_807, [1999] UKEAT 1413_98_0807

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: This is an appeal against the Registrar's order dated 2 March 1999. By that order, she refused the Appellant's application for an extension of time to enable the Notice of Appeal in this case to be considered to be within time.

1. The Appellant's who were the employers before the Employment Tribunal, appeal against the Registrar's order. There is a time limit of five days for making such an appeal. The appeal against that order is made 36 days out of time, the Notice of Appeal having been filed in this case 28 days out of time.
2. The Employment Tribunal's decision was sent to the parties on 17 September 1998. By it the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant employee, Ms Kay, who is the Respondent to this appeal, was entitled to outstanding wages in the amount of £546. The reasons for the Tribunal's decisions are clearly set out.
3. The decision of the Tribunal followed a hearing at Truro on 11 September 1998. The employers had failed to attend that Tribunal hearing and it follows therefore that many of the allegations made by the employers in their IT3 were not supported by any evidence. Having lost the case, the Appellants then sought to appeal against it and as I have indicated, they did not file a Notice of Appeal until after the time for doing so had expired and the Notice of Appeal which was eventually received here was 28 days out of time.
4. It is the suggestion of the employers in this case that the Applicant had behaved dishonestly in the course of her employment and had presented to the Employment Tribunal evidence which was not true. The explanation for the non-serving of the Notice of Appeal within time which was advanced by the employers, is not clear. But they contend that there is documentary proof which shows quite clearly that the Tribunal had been misled. They showed very clearly, says the Appellant, that Ms Kay had lied. The explanation that was put forward was that the Appellants made it very clear that they wished to appeal and they secondly said that they had in fact sent a Notice of Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal within time on 23 September 1998.
5. I am afraid to say that I do not believe that such a Notice of Appeal was sent to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the date it was said to have been posted. That document was not received until 26 November 1998. I am satisfied therefore that the Appellant needs an extension of time and as I have indicated, I do not regard there as being any good reason shown for an extension of time and it seems to me, therefore, that the Registrar's order was right. In the exercise of my discretion I refuse to extend time and therefore I dismiss the appeal against her order. That means that the appeal will be dismissed.
6. I am left with the uncomfortable feeling, it has to be said, that the employers in this case have sought to play for time by delaying the moment at which they have to pay monies which are due according to the Tribunal's finding to Ms Kay. It follows as a result of this judgment that there should be no reason why those monies should not now be paid by the employers.