United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 1104_94_2510

Appeal No. EAT/1104/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25th October 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR P DAWSON OBE

MR A D SCOTT

---

MR K TRAHAIR          APPELLANT

ST IVES (ROCHE) LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE           APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Trahair against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Plymouth on 3rd November 1994.

The Chairman sitting alone explained, in full reasons notified to the parties on 8th November 1994, that Mr Trahair's complaint of unfair dismissal against St Ives (Roche) Ltd was dismissed.

The case was decided on a preliminary issue as to whether Mr Trahair was entitled to an extension of time. His application presented to the Industrial Tribunal on 10th September 1994 was in respect of a dismissal which he had complained had taken place in September (or July) 1993.

The Chairman set out the facts and arguments and explained why he was not satisfied in the circumstances that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr Trahair to present his claim before the end of three months from dismissal and termination of his employment.

Mr Trahair appealed against that decision by a Notice of Appeal served on the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 21st November 1994.

The matter came before the Appeal Tribunal on a preliminary hearing on 24th February 1995 and was adjourned on the application of Mr Trahair. The order made on that day was sealed on 27th February 1995 and sent to the Mr Trahair. It was returned marked that the addressee had gone away.

After that it was not possible to make contact with Mr Trahair. He made no contact with the Tribunal until he returned the form enclosed with the letter giving the date of the hearing. He returned a form dated 13th September 1995, saying that he had no money to come to London for the hearing, that he is on income support and had been ill since he last worked two years ago.

In those circumstances there is no appearance or representation of the appellant today. We have read the papers, and our decision on this adjourned preliminary hearing is that there is no arguable point of law in relation to the claim being out of time, and the refusal of the Tribunal to extend time. In those circumstances there is no point in this matter proceeding. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.