Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wood v Kirklees Metropolitan Council [1995] UKEAT 64_95_1406 (14 June 1995)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/64_95_1406.html
Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 64_95_1406
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC
(IN CHAMBERS)
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
JUDGE HULL QC: There is no attendance in this case, so I will deal with it rather shortly. Mr Wood was employed by the Respondent Council as a Senior Assistant with regard to arrears, that is a rent collector's job, on 1 February 1988. Events occurred which led to his dismissal on 25 February 1994. He complained that he had been unfairly dismissed and that he wanted to be re-engaged. That was in his application to the Industrial Tribunal made on 19 May 1994. By their Notice of Appearance on 8 June 1994, the Council said that he had been dismissed and the reason was misconduct. On 4 November, the Industrial Tribunal sat at Leeds under the Chairmanship of Mr Sutcliffe, with two Industrial Members, and they held that Mr Wood had not been unfairly dismissed.
The decision of the Tribunal was promulgated and sent to Mr Wood on 28 November 1994. On 9 January 1995 the forty-two days which Mr Wood had for making his appeal expired. The Notice of Appeal is dated 12 January 1995 but it was not received and sealed by the E.A.T. until 16 January 1995 and it was, therefore, out of time. Mr Wood applied for time to be extended and the reasons are set out in his letter of 20 January 1995.
He complains of various matters. He says he has good grounds for wanting to set aside the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. Extension of time was refused on 28 February by the Deputy Registrar of the E.A.T. sitting in chambers, and it is from that that Mr Wood seeks to appeal. I have had to consider, in accordance with the guidance given in Marshall v Harland & Wolff [1972] ICR 97 whether there are exceptional circumstances in the case which would entitle me to extend the time. I have also considered the case of United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] IRLR 243. In that case the learned President of this Tribunal cited from the emphatic grounds set out in the practice note in 1972 and repeated them with a good deal of exposition in the form of the reasons for the approach at the E.A.T. to its task when an extension is sought; and saying how this Tribunal will deal with it: `It is wholly exceptional for this Tribunal to extend time for appealing'. I will not paraphrase what has been said by the President and Sir John Donaldson any further. It has to be a rare and exceptional circumstance, something quite out of the ordinary. I cannot find anything like that here. It is not a case where I have to decide on balance, there is nothing which in my view would entitle me in any way to extend time, though of course the extension of time would be a short one. The application for extension is rejected and the appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.