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 >> Shetta v Executive Cleaning Services Plc [1993] UKEAT 528_92_2810 (28 October 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/528_92_2810.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 528_92_2810
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KNOX
MR T S BATHO
MR R JACKSON
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR S GADHIA
Free Respresentation Unit
49-51 Bedford Row
London Wc1R 4LR
For the Respondents MISS S BOTHROYD
(OF COUNSEL)
Messrs Lucas Baron Jacobs
Solicitors
500 Lea Bridge Road
Bakers Arms
Leyton
E10 7DN
MR JUSTICE KNOX: This is an appeal for extension of time for filing a Notice of Appeal against the summary reasons that were given by an industrial tribunal that gave the decision that I have been dealing with in the judgment that I have last given. That decision was sent to the parties on 3 March 1992. I have dealt, I fear at some length, with an application dealing with the review of that decision by the Industrial Tribunal. This is concerned with an appeal against the substance of that decision.
It seems to us that there are 3 fatal objections to this appeal. The first is that it is very severely out of time. The substantive appeal was launched on 8 July 1992. The decision against which it is an appeal was sent on 3 March 1992. That is a period of 4 months 8 days and it is therefore well outside the permitted 42 days from the date when the Industrial Tribunal decision is sent.
The second reason is that it is raises only an issue of fact, because the issue is whether or not the Industrial Tribunal was right in assessing the Appellant's earnings at a particular figure and that is in our view about as pure an issue of fact as one could hope to find.
The third reason is that there was no request for full reasons. That could perhaps be explained in a sense in that the summary reasons which were given were in themselves fairly full, but they are perfectly clearly headed Summary Reasons and it is the rule in this Tribunal that there cannot be an effective appeal here without a statement of full reasons from the Industrial Tribunal. It is conceivable that an Industrial Tribunal might accede to a very late application for full reasons but subject to that, that seems to be a third hurdle in the way of this appeal.
Either of the first two, even if the third one could be overcome seems to us to be fatal and in those circumstances this appeal should in our view be dismissed.