Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Solanke v British Telecom Plc [1992] UKEAT 340_91_2901 (29 January 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/340_91_2901.html
Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 340_91_2901
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR T SOLANKE
(In Person)
For the Respondents MR R A BACK
(Solicitor)
B T Centre
81 Newgate Street
LONDON
EC1A 7A5
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by Mr Solanke from a Decision of the learned Registrar of this Appeal Tribunal given on the 19th July 1991 whereby she refused to extend time for the Notice of Appeal to be filed, that Notice of Appeal was some six months out of date. Mr Solanke's Notice of Appeal from that Decision of the learned Registrar is some three weeks out of date, but I will extend time for his Notice of Appeal from the Registrar's order so as to be able to deal with the matter.
Mr Solanke was employed by the Respondents, British Telecommunications plc from the 21st August 1989 until his dismissal on the 19th March 1990. The basis of his dismissal was that as a Clerical Officer he had proved himself incapable of carrying out the duties of that particular office.
The case brought by him before the Industrial Tribunal, which sat on the 10th and 11th October 1990 was under the Race Relations Act 1976 because he did not have sufficient qualifying time, to bring proceedings under the 1978 Act.
The act of discrimination which he alleged was his dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Martin, who was the Manager immediately in charge of Mr Solanke and also from Mr Martin's superior, Miss Tellwright. They were both found to be acceptable witnesses and gave a history of supervision and attempts to help Mr Solanke to understand and improve his position, but ultimately it appeared to be on their evidence that he was quite incapable of performing even simple tasks without supervision.
The Industrial Tribunal directed themselves perfectly correctly in paragraph 8 of their Decision and I can find no error whatsoever in the legal approach which they made, the facts were essentially for them. The date of that Decision was the 23rd October 1990, Mr Solanke therefore had 42 days within which to file his Notice of Appeal. His Notice of Appeal was not in fact filed until the 28th June 1991, which as I have said, was some six months out of time. His real explanation of this is that he was in touch with his advisors and it was their fault that no Notice of Appeal was filed.
At the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal Mr Solanke had been represented by Counsel and clearly from the correspondence Counsel was instructed by the Lewisham Racial Equality Council. After receipt of the Decision, or perhaps even just before it, Mr Solanke had written to Miss King, who was the Racial Equality Officer at that Council, indicating that he wanted to appeal. Miss King wrote a clear letter of the 19th October 1990 indicating a number of specific reasons why there were no grounds whatsoever for appeal. The reasoning is set out lucidly and succinctly in that letter. Mr Solanke must have been well aware therefore that if he wanted to appeal he must do so on his own.
There is no satisfactory explanation why these notices are out of time, as I say, even in the appeal from the learned Registrar the Notice is some weeks out of time. The learned Registrar has a discretion to exercise, an appeal to me is a re-hearing of the matter but I have read all the papers before me and those documents which were before the learned Registrar. I can find no reason for criticising her decision, indeed I agree with it entirely.
This Appeal is dismissed.