United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 672_93_1401

Appeal No. PA/672/93

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)

---

MRS K HUTCHINSON          APPELLANT

(1) PACE SERVICES (2) MRS T BAYES          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON

AND MR S HUTCHINSON (SON)

For the Respondents MR J PARDY

(GENERAL MANAGER)


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar who refused an application on 22 October last year for an extension of time for appealing. The application was made by the Appellant, Mrs Hutchinson, by a letter of 30 July 1993. Mrs Hutchinson wishes to appeal against the unanimous decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Southampton on 21 May last year. The Industrial Tribunal held that Mrs Hutchinson's claim failed in relation to unfair dismissal because, in their view, she had not been dismissed or, if she had, her application was presented out of time and there were no grounds for extending the time because it was reasonably practicable for her to have made the application within time. The Tribunal also held that, insofar as she was making a complaint of unlawful racial discrimination, it was not just and equitable for that application to be heard.

On 28 May, the decision was sent out to the parties and entered in the Register. It was made clear on the front page of the decision the time for appeal ran from that date. On 22 July, that is 13 days after the expiration of the 42 day time limit for appealing under Rule 3 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules, a Notice of Appeal was received in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It was signed by Mrs Hutchinson and dated 9 July. In that Notice of Appeal she sought to appeal against her unsuccessful hearing in the Industrial Tribunal. She complained that the Tribunal had not taken into account various matters.

It was pointed out to her that her Notice of Appeal was out of time. Mrs Hutchinson wrote a letter to the Tribunal on 30 July apologising for that fact and stating that it was late due to confusion over posting arrangements. She intended to proceed with the appeal and applied for an extension of time. The application was opposed for reasons set out in a letter sent by Mr Pardy, General Manager of the Respondent, to the Registrar on 19 August. In it he stated that he opposed the application for extension of time. He stated that the Industrial Tribunal at the hearing had dealt with questions regarding a potential appeal, stating the time limits and the fact that the appeal was confined to a point of law. He represented the Respondent at the Industrial Tribunal. He understood that Mrs Hutchinson, through her representative Mr Hutchinson, her son, understood this. He also opposed the application on the grounds that Mrs Hutchinson had had access to advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau or from the Commission for Racial Equality. There were no reasons for granting an extension.

At the hearing today Mrs Hutchinson has appeared in person and is again assisted by her son. Between them they have explained the reasons why this appeal was sent in 13 days late. The Courts have insisted that time limits are time limits. There is a 42 day time limit for appealing. The Tribunal has power to extend it, where it is just to do so, but it is only just to do so if there is a good reason given which excuses a person for not sending in an appeal within the time limit. In practice it is rare for the Tribunal to extend the time. It is no good reason for extending the time that a person did not know of the time limit, or overlooked it, or was not well-served by legal advisers or others in relation to advice and representation on the appeal.

As I understand Mrs Hutchinson's explanation for the delay, it is that she did not appreciate, when she sent in the Notice of Appeal, that it was late; now she appreciates it she explains the delay by two main facts: first that she was receiving advice at this time from the Citizens Advice Bureau. That takes time. Sometimes there are delays in getting advice or action, because the Advice Bureau is not always open to help. Secondly, at about this period she was sick for a week or so with a flu-like ailment causing her to suffer pains all over her body. Her son explained that this sickness might have struck at the very time when the Notice of Appeal was due to be posted and hence the reference in Mrs Hutchinson's letter to the Tribunal that delay was due to some confusion over posting arrangements.

I also take into account, in addition to those two points, the fact that Mrs Hutchinson is not represented by legally experienced advisers and that her son, who has been helping her, normally lives in Leeds. He has not been involved in the arrangements for presenting this appeal, save for his attendance today to help his mother argue the case.

I understand all these reasons but, in my judgment, they do not amount to an excuse for failing to get the appeal in in time in the 6 weeks generously allowed by the Rules. This Tribunal tries to do justice. It is an important aspect of justice that Rules are observed and that there is certainty, so that people know where they stand. As far as PACE Services is concerned they were successful before the Industrial Tribunal. In my view it is not fair to them that the rules should be used to extend the time for appealing when no satisfactory excuse has been given for the 13 day delay in sending in the appeal.

I dismiss the appeal against the Registrar's Order.