United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 53_93_1401

Appeal No. PA/53/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14 January 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY

(AS IN CHAMBERS)

---

ANREST LTD          APPELLANTS

(1) MR F CHAND (2) MR A S RIHAL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANTS

For the Respondents MR F CHAND THE 1ST

RESPONDENT IN PERSON

NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE 2ND

RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar who refused to extend the time for appealing against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 9 October 1992.

The Industrial Tribunal decided that Mr Chand had been unfairly dismissed. The decision was notified to the parties on 17 November 1992. On 12 January 1993 a Notice of Appeal was served. That Notice was 14 days late. On 22 February 1993 the Appellant applied to the Registrar to extend the time for appealing under the Rules. The Registrar refused the extension on 2 April. The Appellant then sought to appeal from the Registrar's decision to the President and that appeal was 28 days out of time.

The position today is that the Appellant has neither attended nor been represented. Mr Chand has attended and he asks that the appeal against the Registrar's Order should be dismissed so that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal will then not be under appeal.

There has been correspondence between this Tribunal and the Appellant. During that correspondence a letter was written by the Clerk of the Lists to Mr Rihal on behalf of the Appellant dated 15 November. That was in response to a letter from Mr Rihal to the effect that he was out of the country and was receiving medical treatment. The letter from the Clerk of the Lists stated that this appeal would be heard today at 10.30 a.m. and that Mr Rihal should arrange for representation if he was unable to attend personally.

In more recent correspondence of 21 December 1993 and 13 January 1994 Mr Rihal has stated either directly or through a representative, Mr Singh, that he will be out of the United Kingdom until the middle of 1994 due to ill-health and extensive medical examinations. He therefore requested that the Tribunal should hold on and adjourn the matter until he was back in the United Kingdom.

This is not fair to Mr Chand who succeeded in the Industrial Tribunal as long ago as October 1992. The Appellant has been out of time both in lodging the Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and in lodging an appeal against the refusal of the Registrar to extend the time. No satisfactory reason has been given for both appeals being out of time. No satisfactory reason has been given in recent correspondence as to why the Appellant cannot arrange for Representation at the hearing today to pursue the appeal.

As no-one is present to pursue the appeal and in the absence of the evidence mentioned, this appeal will be dismissed.