[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Opare-Addo v. Wandsworth Borough Council [2001] UKEAT 0740_01_1212 (12 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0740_01_1212.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0740_01_1212, [2001] UKEAT 740_1_1212

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. We are well aware that the issue of what is "not reasonably practicable" and "just and equitable" is primarily for a Tribunal to determine in the light of the facts before them, and cases in which there can be a successful appeal are few. However, we ought to say we have a degree of considerable unease in this case. We have come to the view that, at least, there are arguable grounds in these grounds of appeal. We do not wish to give the impression to the Applicant that she is automatically going to succeed on a full hearing at this Tribunal.
2. The circumstances are fully set out in the Employment Tribunal's Extended Reasons. By a letter dated 11^th August 2000, the Council purported to dismiss the Applicant, that letter saying

"Your last day of service is 11 August 2000 and you will be paid 12 weeks pay in lieu of notice."

The Council argued that was the effective date of termination and that therefore, the Originating Application, presented on 16^th January, was well out of time.

3. The case for the Applicant before the Employment Tribunal was that the dismissal was not effective until 23^rd November 2000 when the Applicant's appeal was determined and that therefore it was presented in time on 14^th January 2001. There seems to be a discrepancy in the decision whether it was the 14^th or the 16^th with which we need not be concerned. In the alternative, the Applicant was arguing it was not reasonably practicable for her to present her application.
4. The Tribunal heard evidence, which it is unnecessary for us to reiterate, but there are a number of factors that are concern us in this case. The first matter is that it has emerged at this hearing that the Applicant did not receive any payment until December which was well after the appeal had been dismissed and she received holiday pay and three months pay notice. She thinks that was the 15^th December 2000. She did not receive her P45 until the following year. Furthermore we are concerned that the Appellant was suffering, according to her skeleton argument, from a mental illness at that time.
5. We are equally concerned that the Council's Codes of Practice into its appeal procedure states that

"The appeal rights conveyed by this Code are not intended to be in substitution for, or prejudice to, an employees right of appeal to an Industrial Tribunal on a complaint of unfair dismissal. Details of that appeal procedure and its time limit may be obtained from the Central Office of the Industrial Tribunals. . .The Council suggests that any aggrieved employee should first use the internal appeals machinery of this Code fully before proceeding on such a complaint."

It was the Applicant's case that had the Council obeyed its own rules and fixed the appeal within twelve days, she would not have been out of time, but, as is clear, it was not until the 23^rd November, far, far in excess of the twelve days, that her appeal was heard.

6. We consider that there may be arguable grounds on the basis of the grounds of appeal that she has lodged with us. We think that it is, at least, arguable that the Tribunal placed altogether too great a weight and burden on the expertise of Mr Addico, her former husband, who had some experience as a Trade Union official but not as, we understand it, a paid Trade Union official.
7. We therefore allow the appeal to proceed. The Applicant is unrepresented. We do not think it realistic to ask her to put in further grounds of appeal. We think it should be allowed to proceed on the basis of her grounds of appeal which were received by this Tribunal on 2^nd July. We consider this should go to a full hearing.
8. We do not want to overstate the position. We think the grounds are arguable and we do say that one of the matters the Tribunal who hear this case will have to consider is what, if any significance, if it be the case, that she was not paid until December and she did not receive her P45 until the following year. We do strongly advise the Applicant to seek legal advice now that we have allowed this matter to go forward. It may be that she is in a position to receive legal aid.