[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> John v College of North East London [2003] UKEAT 0693_02_3004 (30 April 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0693_02_3004.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 0693_02_3004, [2003] UKEAT 693_2_3004

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT In Person


 


JUDGE PROPHET

1. On 28 March 2002 an Employment Tribunal comprising Mr Sigsworth as the Chairman sitting without lay members at the London Central Tribunal struck out Mr John's application on the basis that it had had no reasonable prospect of success. Mr John appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the matter came for a preliminary hearing on 28 October 2002 before Mr Justice Wall sitting with Mr P R A Jacques and Mr P M Smith.
2. At that hearing Mr John, who did not attend, had asked in writing for that preliminary hearing to be adjourned in that being an unrepresented party he needed more time to prepare his submissions. Mr Justice Wall, no doubt mindful of the desirability of providing all reasonable accommodation for Mr John, granted that request. However he also prepared a judgment which sought to indicate to Mr John why he might find it a very uphill task to persuade an appeal tribunal that he has an arguable point of law.
3. Towards the end of his judgment Mr Justice Wall says:

"If in the event he (that is to say Mr John) decides not to proceed we invite him to notify the Tribunal to that effect."

Attempts thereafter by the Registrar to ascertain Mr John's intentions produced no response from him and accordingly the matter was set down for a further preliminary hearing today.

4. Mr John has however produced a skeleton argument which we have read and he has attended and addressed us most courteously this morning. Mr John's essential argument is that the Employment Tribunal's reasons for striking out his application, which was that part-time worker pension cases cannot be considered unless submitted within six months of the end of employment, is an error because there is no such legal proposition. However that argument is not sustainable. The House of Lords in Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others [2001] ICR 217 made it clear that the six months time limit does apply in such cases and that such a limit is not to be regarded as incompatible with rights based on community law.
5. When applied to Mr John's position his application to the Employment Tribunal was submitted some seven years after his employment relationship ended and accordingly was well out of time. That is precisely what Mr Justice Wall indicated in his judgment on 28 October 2002. Although Mr John considers that such a rule is unjust the Employment Tribunal was clearly bound by the House of Lords judgment and had no alternative other than to strike out Mr John's application.
6. Accordingly, there being no arguable point to be put forward for further consideration. Mr John's appeal is dismissed at this time.