United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 256_93_1611

Appeal No. EAT/256/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 16th November 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR A C BLYGHTON

MR J H GALBRAITH CB

---

AGE CONCERN (BLACKBURN) DISTRICT          APPELLANTS

MRS V E PEARSON          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY

OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): We have been asked to deal with this appeal on the basis of written submissions. The appeal is against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on the 22nd January 1993.

By agreement between the parties the Industrial Tribunal made a decision on a preliminary hearing on the basis of written representations submitted by the solicitors acting for both parties.

The point raised in the preliminary hearing was under Section 67(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The point was raised because the complaint of unfair dismissal by the Applicant was presented to the Tribunal one day outside the statutory period of 3 months.

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the complaint was not presented before the end of the 3 month period, beginning with the effective date of termination, but the Tribunal went on to hold that it was not reasonably practicable for the Applicant to present her complaint before the end of that period and the complaint was presented within a reasonable period thereafter. It followed that in the view of the Tribunal there was jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

There was an appeal against that decision, by the Respondent to the application, and detailed submissions were contained in a letter, written by the solicitors for Age Concern (Blackburn) District, to this Tribunal on the 20th September 1993.

The submission goes into considerable detail on the relevant legal considerations and there is extensive reference to decided cases. We do not think it is necessary to go into any detail on the legal submissions for this reason: there is only an appeal to this Tribunal on a point of law. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact, made on the basis of evidence presented to the Tribunal.

In paragraph 5 of their decision the Tribunal said this:

"We conclude that the Originating Application was actually delivered to the Central Office in the course of the post by the Post Office on Monday the 5 October 1992 because of the stamp on it on that date. We have to consider whether it was the reasonable expectation of the applicant's Solicitors that the application would be delivered in the ordinary course on Saturday the 3 October 1992. We have their assertion in their letter that they did have that expectation and accept that. All members of the Tribunal have known recent public announcements by the Post Office that they deliver 90% of their first-class mail within 24 hours of its posting. We have come to the conclusion that we are entitled to take that into account in deciding this case."

It seems to us that that is a statement of uncontradicted fact. The fact was asserted in the solicitor's letter. Because the matter was dealt with by written submission there was no challenge to that fact, or further investigation. The Tribunal had no option but to accept that as a fact. There is no point of law raised on this appeal.

It is well established by the authorities referred to in the written submissions that, in deciding whether it was reasonably practicable to present a complaint within the limitation period, the Tribunal is entitled to take into account all the relevant circumstances, including the state of belief by the Applicant, or the Applicants' solicitors, as to when a letter which has been posted is likely to arrive. The Tribunal took that into account. They did not, on the face of their decision, take other matters into account which were irrelevant to their decision. We cannot therefore interfere with their decision.

We would add just one point for future reference. As emphasised in previous decisions of this Tribunal it is important for the parties and their advisers to avoid this problem, by taking all reasonable steps not to leave until the last moment the presentation of the complaint. As appears from the facts in this case week-ends seem to be a particular cause of trouble. Parties in future will be well advised to prevent this situation from occurring by posting the relevant documents in time to avoid the problems of week-end post.

For those reasons the appeal is dismissed.