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 >> Uttley v Calderdale Borough Council [1994] UKEAT 15_92_2903 (29 March 1994)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/15_92_2903.html
Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 15_92_2903
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MRS R M UTTLEY
(In Person)
For the Respondents MRS R SUNTER
(Solicitor)
Calderdale Borough Council
Legal Section
Crossley House
Crossley Street
Halifax HX1 1UJ
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated the 9th March 1992. The Registrar dealt with an application made by Mrs Uttley for an extension of time in which to lodge an appeal. The Registrar took into account submissions made in correspondence both by Mrs Uttley and by the Respondents, the Borough Council of Calderdale. The Registrar refused the application.
Mrs Uttley was dissatisfied with that decision and wished to appeal to the Judge against the refusal.
The circumstances in which this dispute has arisen are these: as long ago as the 11th September 1974 Mrs Uttley was notified by the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Leeds that her application for unfair dismissal against the Borough Council of Calderdale had failed. The reasons for the decision were notified to her on the 11th September 1974. Mrs Uttley did not appeal.
Six years later, in 1980, she made an application to the Industrial Tribunal by letter dated 22nd June for a review of the 1974 decision. Mrs Uttley was notified on the 4th July 1980 that her application for a review was dismissed on the grounds that her application was not made within the time appointed. An extension of time was not granted and in any case her application would be refused on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Chairman set out in the decision that the reason for the application for the review was that Mrs Uttley alleged that she had a notice of disallowance of sickness benefit in 1973. Because of this notice she sent no further medical certificates to the Department of Health & Social Security and that she had now discovered, after being unaware of it for seven years, that her sickness benefit had never, in fact, been disallowed and so this year had filed an appeal with the National Insurance Tribunal concerning disallowance of her benefit in 1973. The Chairman of the Tribunal commented that, even if those facts were true, it was doubtful whether it would be proper for him to grant an appropriate extension of time for applying for a review.
The next that the Industrial Tribunal heard of the matter was in 1991 when Mrs Uttley applied for a review of the 1974 decision. She said a review should be granted because the Tribunal had made a wrong decision; that since the conclusion of the hearing new evidence had become available and the interests of justice required such a review.
On the 17th October 1991 Mrs Uttley was notified by the Industrial Tribunal that her application for a review contained in a letter of the 16th September 1991 was refused because it had no reasonable prospect of success. In the reasons for the decision the Tribunal Chairman stated that the decision was taken as long ago as 1974 and it would require something completely exceptional to justify reopening a case 17 years later. He stated:
"that it is apparent that the reason for the applicant's dismissal was a matter which related to her persistent absenteeism. Medical evidence was not regarded as conclusive; the tribunal looked into the matter in the round and found the respondent's decision that dismissal was appropriate and not to be unfair.
I can see no grounds for utilising the review procedure in this case."
On the 15th November 1991 the Regional Office of Industrial Tribunals informed Mrs Uttley that her letter of the 12th November 1991 had been acknowledged. The letter referred to a finding of the Industrial Tribunal in 1974 and why the Chairman saw no grounds for utilising the review procedure. It was pointed out:
"that the only judicial avenue remaining to Mrs Uttley was to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London against the 1974 decision although, he stated, you will understand that there are time limits for such appeals."
Mrs Uttley decided to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against the refusal of the Industrial Tribunal to review the 1974 decision.
The Notice of Appeal was not received at the Employment Appeal Tribunal until 7th January 1992. That was after the 42 day time limit for appealing had expired. Mrs Uttley applied to the Registrar for an extension of time. The extension was refused. This is the appeal against that refusal.
On the hearing today Mrs Uttley has appeared "in person". The Council has been represented by Mrs Sunter, who has made oral submissions in addition to the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the Council. During the course of the hearing Mrs Uttley explained that the reason why she had not appealed in time was that she did not know of the right of appeal and that she should have been told. It does not appear that she made any enquiries, at the time when she was notified of the decision, about the right of appeal other than is apparent from the letter of the 15th November, which I have read. No particular reason has been advanced by Mrs Uttley as to why she was unable to make such enquiries. What she has handed me instead is a quantity of documents which show that for a number of years she has been in correspondence with other departments, such as the Department of Health, the DSS Office in Leeds, the DSS Headquarters in London and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and also the Contributions Agency in Newcastle.
As far as far as I have been able to understand from Mrs Uttley's submissions what she wishes to do is to reopen the Industrial Tribunal's decision of 1974 in order to make a complaint about the position on sickness benefit. I am not immediately concerned with the position about sickness benefit or whether the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in 1974 was right or wrong. This is an appeal solely on the question whether the Registrar was wrong in refusing an extension of time for appealing against the decision refusing a review of the 1974 decision. In my judgment, the decision of the Registrar was correct.
As is pointed out by the Council, there is a time limit. The position is not, as stated by Mrs Uttley in one of her letters, "that there is no time limit on justice in this Country". There is a time limit for appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It is 42 days from the date on which the decision is sent. The Tribunal insists on strict adherence to that time limit. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that an extension will be granted. An extension will never be granted, unless the Tribunal has been satisfied by evidence that there was a good reason for not complying with the 42 day time limit.
Mrs Uttley has not shown, either in her oral submissions or in the documents which she has filed or handed up, that there was any good reason for her failing to comply with the time limit. I take into account that this Tribunal shows more leniency in cases where the time limit has not been complied with by those who are acting "in person". But even taking that into account in this case, I am unable to find in the facts any justification for extending the time limit.
In those circumstances Mrs Uttley's appeal will be dismissed.
I say in conclusion that half way through giving this judgment Mrs Uttley decided that it was not worth remaining in the Tribunal. She left, making clear, as she left, her dissatisfaction with the way in which her affairs have been dealt with by the Tribunal and by the other agencies with whom she has been dealing. The appeal is dismissed.