[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Murphy v. Moss Beachley Mullem & Coleman [2003] UKEAT 0514_03_2309 (23 September 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0514_03_2309.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 0514_03_2309, [2003] UKEAT 514_3_2309

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No Appearance or Representation By or on Behalf of the Appellant


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

1. The Applicant indicated on the pro forma that she intended to be here. She was not when the case was called on. Valiant efforts were made by EAT staff to locate her, all in vain and therefore I will deal with it in her absence.
2. This is an application made under Rule 3 (10) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 2001, the route by which an Applicant or a Respondent may complain about the decision of the Registrar.
3. The decision of the Registrar was made on 9 June 2003. She decided that the Applicant's Notice of Appeal did not disclose a question of law. The decision had come about following a recommendation of a judge of the EAT to her that she should consider exercising her power under Rule 3 (7). She did so. The matter now comes before me to consider the matter afresh.
4. I have the same papers as were available to the judge and to the Registrar, except I have a Skeleton Argument which consists of about 40 words. She says as follows:

"I consider my appeal should be considered for the following reasons.

1. Access to justice

2. It would be just and equitable to do so.

3. In order to outlaw slave labour and unfair treatment at work.

4. In order to eradicate racism [in] Solicitor's firms."

The grounds of appeal are scarcely fuller.

5. The decision upon which the appeal is based was made on an application for review by Mr H R L Purse, Chairman at London (Stratford) on 19 February 2003. This relates to a decision made by his Tribunal on 22 April 2002.
6. In a letter of 13 December received on 20 December 2002 a review was sought. It is contended that the Applicant's case had reached a withdrawal by reason of pressure. The application was not made within the requisite period of 14 days. The Chairman noted that it was made long out of time and the only explanation given was that the Applicant was in need of a reference from her previous employers.
7. The Chairman considered that it was important for there to be certainty and finality in decisions and that the reason for the delay in this case did not justify it and so he declined to extend the period for making an application for review.
8. It must be appreciated that that is the exercise of a judgment and discretion by the Employment Tribunal Chairman in the extension of time. I can see no fault in his decision; and therefore no point of law arises. It is purely a matter for him and unless he is so wrong in principle no appeal would lie. I do not find him so to be.
9. The application is dismissed. The Registrar's order that no further action be taken is upheld and the Notice of Appeal is dismissed.