[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Johnston v. Sodexho Ltd [2001] UKEAT 868_01_2011 (20 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/868_01_2011.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 868_1_2011, [2001] UKEAT 868_01_2011

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS ANYA PALMER (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Kevills Solicitors 32 St Thomas's Road Chorley PR7 1HZ


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This is the hearing, ex parte, of an appeal by Mr J Johnston ("the Appellant") an employee from a refusal of an Employment Tribunal to supply Extended Reasons following a hearing in Manchester on 31 May 2001 of a complaint that he had been unfairly dismissed. His complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded, his remaining applications were withdrawn. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant £13,931.71 as compensation for the unfair dismissal. It was held that recoupment regulations did not apply to the award, and the Respondent's costs were refused. The Chairman gave Summary Reasons when giving the Tribunal's Decision. They were reduced to writing and sent to the parties on 4 June 2001, the hearing having been heard on 31 May 2001.
2. The Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal against the Decision to the EAT dated 5 July 2001. It was immediately pointed out by this Tribunal that no Extended Reasons for the Employment Tribunal's decision had been given and that provision of such a judgment was a necessary preliminary for most appeals. The Appellant then applied to the Chairman for Extended Reasons. His request was refused by the Chairman on 18 July 2001 by formal letter, which stated:

"The Chairman refuses your request for extended reasons. The request has not been made within 21 days in accordance with rule 10(4)(c)(ii) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 1993 and as explained in the explanatory notes accompanying the decision. The decision with reasons in summary form was sent to the parties on 7 June 2001. A request for extended reasons should have been made by 28 June 2001. The request was not made until 12 July 2001 (the date on which your letter was received), some 14 days late. The request provides no basis upon which the Chairman might exercise his discretion to extend time under rule 15."

3. In our judgment, the paragraph gives good reasons for reaching the decision. Miss Palmer who appears on this hearing has drawn our attention to Wolseley Centers Ltd v Simmons [1994] ICR 503 and Ali v Christian Salvesen Food Services Ltd [1996] ICR 1 where the EAT permitted the Appellant's appeal to proceed without the provision of Extended Reasons; as well as to William Hill Organisation v Gavas [1990] IRLR 488, where the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the EAT which had refused to exercise the discretion it undoubtedly has. In the Wolseley Centers, it is quite clear that the appeal was allowed because there were sufficient findings of fact in the Summary Reasons to enable the appeal to proceed.
4. In the course of her address, Miss Palmer submitted that it would be necessary to get the Chairman's Notes of the hearing by the Employment Tribunal because there are not sufficient findings of fact in the Summary Reasons. That is exactly the reason why Extended Reasons have normally to be obtained, as illustrated by the decision in Gavas. Clearly it is not possible for the appeal fairly to proceed on Summary Reasons only and there were good reasons for the refusal of extension of time to provide Extended Reasons.
5. In the circumstances, we must dismiss this appeal at this stage.