United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 1027_93_1411

Appeal No. PA/1027/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14 November 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

(IN CHAMBERS)

---

MR I GUTTERIDGE          APPELLANT

BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE ON

BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANT

For the Respondents MR P THORNTON

(of Counsel)


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by Mr Gutteridge in proceedings against British Telecommunications for unfair dismissal. The history of the proceedings is that Mr Gutteridge was dismissed from his employment as an external cable technician with British Telecom at the end of October 1991.

The circumstances of his dismissal led him to present an application to the Industrial Tribunal on 27 January 1992 complaining of unfair dismissal. The claim was contested by British Telecom in their Notice of Appearance. They stated that that he was dismissed for a serious offence, of continual lateness for work, following earlier warnings and hearings. In this case he had appealed against the decision to dismiss him, unsuccessfully.

The case came before the Industrial Tribunal held at London South on 10 July 1992 and 28 July 1993. Mr Gutteridge appeared in person. The Tribunal (for the full reasons notified to the parties on 19 August 1993), unanimously decided that he was fairly dismissed and his claimed therefore failed. It is clear from the reasons given by the Tribunal that Mr Gutteridge was given all the help that the Tribunal could reasonably provide to him as a litigant in person. The Tribunal stated that it appeared to them that Mr Gutteridge did not appreciate the nature of his case, or the contractual relationship that he had with British Telecom. The Tribunal added:

"... We...tried to adopt as helpful an approach as possible to enable him to give of his best but in the end it was quite clear that he was admitting that his conduct was of such a nature as clearly justified his dismissal..."

Mr Gutteridge sought to appeal against that decision. His Notice of Appeal, which is dated 22 October 1993, was not received in the Employment Appeal Tribunal until 33 days after the time had expired for appealing. The period for appealing is 42 days from the date on which extended written reasons for the decision of the Industrial Tribunal are sent to the applicant. It is also common practice for a tribunal, in notifying the parties of its full reasons, to include documents relating to appeals in which it is made clear that there is a time limit of 42 days for appealing.

As he was out of time, it was necessary for Mr Gutteridge to apply to the Appeal Tribunal for an extension of time. Applications are dealt with in the first instance by the Registrar. By an Order dated 23 December 1993 the Registrar, after considering Mr Gutteridge's letter of application for an extension of time and after considering written representations from British Telecom, refused to extend time for appealing. There is a right of appeal from the Registrar to a judge of the Tribunal, but the appeal must be brought within 5 days. In this case, Mr Gutteridge was 163 days out of time before he gave notice that he wished to appeal from the Registrar's refusal of extension of time.

The position therefore is that he is substantially out of time, both in seeking to appeal from the Registrar's decision refusing the extension, and in seeking to appeal out of time from the Industrial Tribunal decision.

Having read the papers, it is clear that no reason or explanation has been given by Mr Gutteridge for his failure to comply with the time limits for appealing. The time limits are strictly applied and will not be extended unless a satisfactory excuse has been provided for not complying with the time limits. No excuse has been provided.

The position at the hearing today is that Mr Gutteridge has not been represented and he has not appeared. There has been some doubts about his exact position for some time. A letter was sent to the Registrar on 8 June 1994. It purported to be signed by Luke Gutteridge, Mr Gutteridge's son, who, it appears from the inquiries made by the advisors to British Telecom is only 12¹/₂ years old, according to the letter Mr Gutteridge took his own life earlier this year. The letter states that "Mr Luke" is now seeking the compensation that his father was claiming. Inquiries by British Telecom have failed to reveal any registration of Mr Gutteridge's death. A message was given to the Appeal Tribunal this morning that Mr Gutteridge is at this moment, in Police custody at Brentwood Police Station. He is unlikely to be released from custody until later today or possibly tomorrow. The reasons for his custody are not known.

In deciding whether to proceed with the hearing of this Appeal in Mr Gutteridge's absence, I have taken account of the fact that a party has a right to be heard before any decision is reached and that, in appropriate circumstances, an adjournment would be granted so that a party, who was unable for some good reason to attend the hearing of the Appeal, could attend at a later date or be represented.

Looking at the history of this case, I see no point in granting an adjournment. None of the documents or arguments submitted by Mr Gutteridge are convincing enough to satisfy me either that I should extend the time for appealing against the decision of the Registrar, or even if I was satisfied on that, that I should extend the time on the hearing of that Appeal for his appealing against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.

In those circumstances, the Appeal is dismissed.