United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 260_94_1406

Appeal No. EAT/260/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14 June 1994

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR R JACKSON

MR J C RAMSAY

---

JOHN HEALY & CO          APPELLANTS

MS A RAOOF          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR D BURLES

(OF COUNSEL)

John Healy & Co

66 High street

Lewes

E Sussex BN7 1XG


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: This is an application for leave to appeal by the Appellants, Messrs John Healy & Co, who were the Respondents to an application made by Ms Ambreen Raoof for relief under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 for unfair dismissal. There was a hearing at London South on the 27 January 1994 when the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that it was not reasonably practicable to lodge the application within three months from the date of termination of the employment of the Respondent. That was on a preliminary point, and it is from that preliminary point that the Appellants appeal.

The reason it was not considered reasonably practicable for the application to be lodged within the 3 months was to do with the Respondent Solicitors' lodging of the application and the expiration of the period. In effect, she had, so far as we can see, done nothing to follow up the lodging of the application to ensure that it was in fact delivered or received in time by those to whom it was addressed.

We do not usually encourage authorities to be cited to us on ex parte hearings but we did encourage Mr Burles to cite to us authorities this morning and he has drawn to our attention the decision of the Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunal in Capital Food Retails Ltd v Corrigan [1993] IRLR 430. Having had our attention drawn to that appeal we think that there is a very arguable case in the appeal and it must therefore go forward. We would, however, urge both parties to the dispute to have regard to the decision in that case to see whether a full hearing in the circumstances will in fact be necessary. That, of course, is a matter for them.