United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

 


BAILII case number: [1992] UKEAT 399_91_2603

Appeal No. EAT/399/91

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

4 ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, LONDON, SW1 4JU

At the Tribunal

On 26th March 1992

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KNOX

MR J P M BELL CBE

MR A FERRY MBE

---

MR A K INDRAYEN          APPELLANT

JOHN DELANEY - ACCESS HOTELS (LONDON) LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


 APPEARANCE

For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE KNOX: This is a preliminary hearing on an ex parte basis of an appeal by Mr A K Indrayen against two matters, one the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on the 18th March 1991, and secondly against a refusal by the Chairman of that Industrial Tribunal to review that Decision, the refusal being expressed to be on the basis that the Industrial Tribunal was, to quote the letter "Functus Officio". That was on the 9th May 1991.

The Notice of Appeal extends to seven pages and contains a very large amount of entirely extraneous matter. We have listened to Mr Indrayen and studied the papers with some care, and we have reached the conclusion that there are two matters which are arguable on the appeal against the order, and one on the refusal of the review, for which and for which only, we propose to allow the appeal to go forward.

The two points which we see as arguable, and we must not be taken to express the view that they will succeed, but we take the view that they are arguable, are, first of all that there was an improper refusal to grant an adjournment on the 18th March 1991, which was applied for on the basis of sickness.

Secondly, that there was a wrongful failure to deal with the application made on the 16th March 1991 for the Respondents to be debarred from defending the Originating Application for failure to comply with an Order of the Industrial Tribunal dated the 11th March 1991 regarding discovery.

The arguable point in relation to the refusal of the review, in our view, is that the request for review was in time, that is to say within 14 days after the Decision was sent to the parties on the 11th April 1991 but was refused as being out of time, whereby the Appellant was deprived of the right to a review of the Decision.

On those grounds, and those grounds only, we allow the appeal to go forward.