Author: jury
Company: IALS

Appeal No. PA/206/94

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 6th November 1994

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

	(IN CHAMBERS)

MISS P MORRISON	APPELLANT

THE POST OFFICE	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	(No Appearance by or 
Representation on Behalf
	of Appellant)

	MR JUSTICE MUMMERY  (PRESIDENT):  This is an Appeal against the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Hereford on the 6th, 7th September and 16th December 1993.  The Tribunal unanimously decided that the Application of Unlawful Sex Discrimination made by Miss Pauline Morrison against the Post Office should be dismissed.  The Full Reasons for the Decision were notified to the parties on the 29th December 1993.

	The Notice of Appeal against that Decision was not received in the Employment Appeal Tribunal until the 3rd March 1994.  It was received 22 days out of time.  An Application was made for an extension of time by an order dated 21st March 1994; the Registrar refused to extend time after receiving written submissions on that Application from both Miss Morrison and the Post Office.  This is an Appeal against the Registrar's Order.

	The position today is that Miss Morrison has not attended and she has not been represented.  The Post Office has submitted a Skeleton Argument and asked the matter to be decided without oral submissions.  It would be possible, in the absence of Miss Morrison, simply to dismiss the Appeal for want of prosecution.  As I have read the papers, it is appropriate to say a few words about the merits of the Appeal.  

	As stated in the Post Office Skeleton Argument, this Tribunal places great importance on strict adherence to the 42 day time limit set for appealing by the Rules.  The Tribunal will only extend time in exceptional circumstances, where it has been satisfied that there is a good excuse for non-compliance with the Rules.  

	In this case, Miss Morrison did receive legal advice during 1992 from solicitors.  They submitted her Application to the Industrial Tribunal.  At the Industrial Tribunal, the case put forward by Miss Morrison was fully considered.  When she was notified of the Full Reasons for the Decision, she would have also received a document explaining the time limit for the Appeal.  Although Miss Morrison was acting in person, she was congratulated by the Industrial Tribunal, in the last paragraph of their Full Reasons, for the capable manner in which she conducted her case, and for her general dignity throughout the proceedings.  They said that she had amply demonstrated a responsible attitude in what appeared to be a genuine desire to find a worthwhile career.  

	In those circumstances, ask whether any exceptional circumstances have been shown for presenting this Appeal out of time.  Miss Morrison was aware of the existence of the time limit.  In fact, she wrote to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the 26th February 1994, stating that she realized she might be out of time.  Her explanation for being out of time was that there was no-one in her area who could give her legal advice, on a Tribunal case.  But she had received advice previously from a firm of solicitors and had been able to conduct her proceedings capably.  I agree with the submission of the Post Office that Miss Morrison has shown no reason why she could not have presented her Notice of Appeal in time.  If she needed legal advice, she has shown no reason why she could not have obtained it within the time limits.  She could have then got on with her Appeal in the prescribed period.

	In those circumstances, I agree with the Registrar that this is not a case for extending the time for appealing.

	The Appeal is dismissed.

© Copyright 1995

PA/206/94

PA/206/94

	‑  ‑