Appeal No.	 EAT/561/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 30 June 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN
MR A E R MANNERS
MR P M SMITH

KENNETH COLLINSON	APPELLANT

CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF THE UK LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

	JUDGE J ALTMAN:	This is an Appeal against the refusal of the Chairman in this case to provide extended reasons because the application was made so long after the Hearing, as indeed it was.  It comes before us initially by way of Preliminary Hearing to determine if there is a point of law to merit argument in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, though we emphasise that it is only the refusal to give extended reasons at this stage which is being so dealt with.  The Respondents have been contacted and in the event that this preliminary hearing for extended reasons succeeds, they would not wish to be heard at the full hearing of this single issue.

1	The history of this matter is that on the 2nd October the main hearing was conducted and the reasons were promulgated on 22nd October 1998.  In the meantime, the Appellant had had a brief discussion with his solicitors.  Accordingly, the 12th November was the last day within the time for requesting extended reasons.  At that time, we are told, the Appellant had gone to visit and stay for an extended period with friends in the South of England and although he knew of the decision, he did not return to the Newcastle area until 4th December.  He then saw his solicitor on 8th December and on 17th December, his solicitors made the mistake of sending in a Notice of Appeal without extended reasons having been requested.  It was when the impossibility of Appeal without them was drawn to their attention that on 25th January they wrote to request them from the Chairman and that was dealt with in the way I have already described.  Accordingly, the request was some 10 weeks out of time, although it is right to say that if the request had been made when the solicitors mistakenly sent the Notice of Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal it would only have been 5 weeks out of time.

2	The Notice of Appeal complains about a number of matters and we have had an opportunity of seeing that, even though of course, it is not properly entered at this stage.  But the complaint is that the Tribunal was wrong in law in coming to the decision it did on the evidence before it.  That is unparticularised and unlikely to give rise, it seems to us, at this stage to any substantial argument.  But then it is alleged that the Appellant felt so intimidated by the procedure at the Hearing that he could not give his evidence fully and read from a prepared statement.  That he did not cross-examine the Respondents’ witnesses, and does not recall being invited to do so.  That he feels there were several relevant points which he did not bring up.  That he was handed a bundle of documents at the Hearing and did not get a chance to read those; that blatant lies were stated in that bundle.

3	Because the Appellant appeared in person before the Employment Tribunal and because he has wanted to appeal from quite an early stage, it seems to us that it would in the end, on the information that is now before us, be very harsh to deprive him of his appeal because of the lateness of the application for extended reasons.  In a way, it is perhaps a shame that the law provides that the appeal cannot otherwise proceed and we are sure that we have more information now than was before the Chairman.  But bearing all those factors into account it does seem to us that extended reasons should be provided in this case.  Accordingly, we consider that there is an arguable point of law on the Preliminary Hearing.  

4	Furthermore, during the course of today, at our instigation, as I described, the Respondents to this Appeal have been contacted to see if they would wish to have been heard at a Full Hearing once that preliminary decision was made, and they have intimated that they would not wish to be so heard.  Accordingly, we have gone a stage further and constituted this as the hearing of the Appeal itself and for the reasons we have outlined we have allowed that Appeal and we give a direction that extended reasons should be provided.  

5	We direct that the Appellant file an affidavit setting out in detail the matters that he relies upon of fact in relation to grounds 2 and 3 of the grounds of Appeal.  That must be done within 21 days of the promulgation of this Judgment.  At the same time, it would be helpful if the Learned Chairman and also, if he finds it appropriate, members if able to assist, could give a response to the matters set out in the grounds of Appeal and in the affidavit.  Upon receipt of the extended reasons, if the main Appeal is to proceed, the matter can be dealt with by a properly entered Notice of Appeal and Preliminary Hearing in due course.