United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1003_95_2503

Appeal No. EAT/1003/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25 March 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER QC

MS S R CORBY

MR J H GALBRAITH CB

---

ST GEORGE'S NHS HEALTHCARE TRUST          APPELLANTS

MRS D MENDIS & OTHERS          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR J HOSKINS

(of Counsel)

Messrs Bevan Ashford

Solicitors

35 Colston Avenue

Bristol

BS1 4TT


 


JUDGE N BUTTER QC: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by St George's NHS Healthcare Trust, in respect of a decision of the Chairman at London (South) declining to extend time and provide extended reasons. The essential dates are these. The case was heard on 23 March 1995. The decision was given orally on that day and the Tribunal made findings of unfair dismissal.

The written decision was sent to the parties on 24 April and gave what were described as "summary reasons", which were more detailed than in many instances but certainly were not extended reasons within the meaning of the rule.

The Appellants were dissatisfied and therefore sent to the Employment Appeal Tribunal a Notice of Appeal on 5 June, that is to say just within the relevant 42 days, but it will be remembered at that stage there were only summary reasons, and under the rules it is a condition precedent to an appeal that there should be extended reasons. This was a mistake made by the solicitors for the Appellants in failing to apply within time for extended reasons.

They applied to the Industrial Tribunal for the full reasons to be given on 9 June and were therefore some 25 days out of time. This request was refused by a letter of 22 June and again, after a further request, on 4 July.

It is accepted today that the appeal must be based upon the submission that the Chairman's decision was a perverse one, because he has a very wide discretion indeed. It is legitimate to look at rules 10(3) and 10(4); 10(4) in particular provides:

"10(4) The reasons for the decision of the tribunal shall be given in summary form except where -

(a) - (b) ...

(c) such a request is made in writing by a party after the hearing either -

(i) ...

(ii) within 21 days of the date on which that document was sent to the parties; or

(d) the tribunal considers that reasons given in summary form would not sufficiently explain the grounds for its decision;

and in those circumstances the reasons shall be given in extended form."

We find it impossible to say that it was incumbent on the Tribunal to give extended reasons under 10(4)(d) and so far as 10(4)(c) is concerned, the plain fact is that the Appellants did not apply, as they were required to do, for extended reasons to be provided within the requisite time limit.

Various criticisms are made of the decision itself, but having considered the argument presented to us, we are clearly and unanimously of the view that we cannot appropriately interfere with the discretion of the Chairman which we cannot, in fairness, say was perverse.

Taking all matters into account, it follows that there is no point in the matter proceeding further and the appeal therefore must be dismissed.