United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 114_94_0710

Appeal No. PA/114/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 7th October 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

(IN CHAMBERS)

---

A R LEVERTON          APPELLANT

MRS J T LEVERTON

AR & J T (NEWQUAY) LTD.          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCES BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal against a order of the Registrar made on the 7th March 1994. She refused an Application by the Appellants,

Mr and Mrs Leverton, for an extension of time in which to enter a Notice of Appeal.

Mr and Mrs Leverton wish to appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Truro on the 1st July 1993. The Tribunal, for full reasons notified to the parties on the 5th July 1993, dismissed applications by Mr and Mrs Leverton against the Respondent company in which they were the majority shareholders and directors. The claim was for redundancy payments. Mr and Mrs Leverton did not serve a Notice of Appeal on the Employment Appeal Tribunal until the 8th February 1994. They stated that their ground of appeal was that they were waiting for further legal advice. They were not aware until the 28th January 1994, following a telephone call to ACAS (Bristol), that a further appeal was possible.

Mr and Mrs Leverton appeared in person before the Industrial Tribunal. Neither of them have appeared today nor have they been represented. The Respondents were, not surprisingly, also unrepresented and failed to appear. By letter sent to the Appeal Tribunal on the 27th September, Mr Leverton confirmed a request which he had made to the Listing Office for an adjournment of today's hearing until next year, so that he and his wife could be present together with legal representatives. The letter states it was made quite clear to Mr Vince, the Listing Officer, that:

"...the 7th october would not be convenient as both my wife and myself would not be available to attend."

He states:

"It would appear that we have grounds for an appeal against a refusal to allow Redundancy payments.."

and concludes:

"I look forward to your reply, and trust that you will be able to defer the Hearing until the New year."

The letter does not state any detailed grounds as to why Mr and Mrs Leverton would be unable to attend today's hearing. In their absence, I have considered the application and all the papers relevant to it. The position is that this Notice of Appeal was received 176 days out of time. The question on an Appeal against the Registrar's refusal to extend time is whether a good excuse has been shown by Mr and Mrs Leverton for not serving their Notice of Appeal in time.

In a letter to the Registrar dated 16th February 1994, they stated that they were not advised that they were able to appeal against the findings of the Industrial Tribunal at Truro. They only found out about this by listening to a programme on the local radio, when a situation identical to theirs was discussed. They point out that they were both unemployed and unable to obtain benefits. They had not the financial means to employ a solicitor. Efforts had been made to obtain legal aid, but that had been refused. It was therefore difficult for them to obtain the relevant information. For those reasons they ask that their Application be considered favourably, remembering that they are without legal representation.

I have considered the contents of that letter and the whole background to this case, including an enigmatic letter signed by Mr Leverton, on behalf of the Respondent, confirming that the Respondent had no objection to he and his wife applying for an extension of time in which to enter a Notice of Appeal. That is not surprising since the Respondent is controlled by the Appellants. I take no notice of the non-objection on behalf of the Respondent.

The crucial question on an application to extend time for appealing is whether a good excuse has been shown for failure to comply with the time limits. The authorities establish that the Appeal Tribunal takes a strict view about time limits. It is not sufficient simply to produce an explanation. What must be shown are exceptional circumstances which justify the failure to observe the generous time for appealing made well-known to disappointed parties when they are notified of the decision. In this case, the main point relied on by Mr and Mrs Leverton, that they were not aware of the fact they could appeal, is not a good excuse for non-compliance with the time limits. It is the practice of

Industrial Tribunals, when they send out decisions, to include covering documents which make it clear to the recipients that there is a right of appeal on points of law to this Tribunal and that there is 42 days in which to serve an appeal.

I have taken account of the fact that Mr and Mrs Leverton are unrepresented. The practice is to regard the position of unrepresented parties with more leniency. In this case, however, there is no good excuse for being 176 days out of time for this Appeal. The Appeal against the Registrar's Order will be dismissed.