United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 206_94_2203

Appeal No.PA/206/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 22 March 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

---

MISS P MORRISON          APPELLANT

THE POST OFFICE          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON

For the Respondents MR M ZUKE

(Solicitor)

The Solicitor's Office

Impact House

2 Edridge Road

Croydon

CR9 1PJ


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an application for a review of the decision, given on 6 December 1994, on an appeal by Miss Morrison, against the refusal of the Registrar to extend the time for appealing. The reason for the application for a review was that, mistakenly, the papers giving notice of the hearing of the appeal were sent to Miss Morrison's old address at 431 Worcester Road, instead of her new address at 39 Russell Drive. The result was that she did not receive proper notice of the appeal, heard on that day. She was granted a review under Rule 33(11b) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules. She has now placed before the Tribunal, on the hearing of this review, a number of detailed letters and accompanying documents, to explain why she did not serve her Notice of Appeal within the period laid down by the rules; i.e. 42 days from the date when the Industrial Tribunal decision was sent out to the parties. That was 29 December. The Notice of Appeal was not served on this Tribunal until 3 March, that is 22 days after the expiration of the time for appealing. It is well settled by the practice of this Tribunal and the decisions of it that the rule is strict, 42 days means 42 days. It is only in rare cases that the period will be extended under the power Rule 37.

In order to exercise that power the Tribunal has to be satisfied that there is a good excuse, not just an explanation, for the failure to observe the time limits. In this case, Miss Morrison has satisfied me that she was certainly busy after she received notice of the decision, trying to get advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau and from solicitors about her next step. She went to the Citizens Advice Bureau, but they did not have any expert. She made arrangements to see a solicitor. Her excuse is that it was not until 24 February, that is just a few days before she sent in the Notice of Appeal, that she received advice from a firm of solicitors she consulted, that she would have a legal argument on the appeal. Those solicitors were a firm in Kidderminster called Thursfields. She says that, within a short time of getting that advice, she did take the necessary steps to bring the appeal on. That does not help her today. It is for the party who has lost the case and wants to appeal, to do all the things necessary to institute the appeal urgently. Parties are notified, when they are sent the reasons for the decision, that they have 42 days in which to appeal. It is urgent to do something about taking advice and if advice cannot be obtained within that period, to send in a Notice of Appeal or at the very least, a letter to this Tribunal, explaining the position; saying that the party wishes to appeal, stating the grounds on which they say the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in its decision, and asking, if necessary, for the time to be extended for legal advice to be taken.

I appreciate that it is difficult for Miss Morrison, in her circumstances, to afford legal advice. She did the case at the Industrial Tribunal on her own and did it capably, even though unsuccessfully. She should have appreciated the importance of getting on with the case and moved more urgently in taking action than she did. I am sorry for any grievance that she feels about this, but the rules are binding upon me as well as Miss Morrison. I have to apply the rules. The rules are clear, that this appeal is out of time. The reasons given by Miss Morrison in the letters to the Tribunal, dated 2 March and 6 March 1995, are not sufficient to amount to a valid excuse for failure to comply with the time limits. In those circumstances, I decline to review or vary the order, made on 6 December, dismissing this appeal from the Registrar's refusal to extend the time.