United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1229_95_1901

Appeal No. PA/1229/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 19th January 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

(AS IN CHAMBERS)

---

MRS E TAYLOR          APPELLANT

CO-OPERATIVE RETAIL SERVICES          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN PERSON

For the Respondents MR J P PALMER

(Solicitor)

Croftons

Solicitors

Television House

Manchester


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against the Registrar's refusal to extend the time for appealing. An application for an extension was made by the appellant, Mrs Taylor. The application was refused on 13th November 1995. Mrs Taylor wrote in to say that she wished to appeal.

This is the hearing of the appeal. As in the Industrial Tribunal Mrs Taylor appears in person, and Mr Palmer appears on the appeal for the respondents, Co-operative Retail Services Limited.

The relevant dates are that Mrs Taylor's claim for unfair constructive dismissal was heard by the Industrial Tribunal on 27th June 1995 at Exeter. On 4th July 1995 the tribunal sent out the full reasons for the decision rejecting her claim. On 18th July 1995 a firm of solicitors instructed by Mrs Taylor made an application for review. The reasons on which they sought a review are set out in the letter. Their main complaint was that Mrs Taylor had witnesses with her at the hearing who would have been able to give relevant evidence. Mrs Taylor was not given the chance to call them. Further, had the Tribunal had the benefit of hearing those witnesses they might well have reached a different conclusion.

The application for a review was refused by the Chairman. That decision was notified on 24th July 1995. He refused the application on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. He was satisfied that the claim for constructive dismissal was rightly rejected. Mrs Taylor had failed to meet the essential requirements of such a claim. Nothing stated by her solicitors in their letter of application suggested that the conclusion of the tribunal was wrong.

The Notice of Appeal was not received by this tribunal until 16th October 1995. It is many days late. The rules are clear. There are 42 days from the date of the extended reasons being sent out in which to institute an appeal. This time limit is strictly enforced. It is generous and it is well-known. The time limit was drawn to Mrs Taylor's attention when the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was sent out. It was accompanied by the notes IT9 which are included with the original decision. Mr Palmer has drawn my attention to paragraphs 3 and 19. They make it clear that the Notice of Appeal must be served on the Employment Appeal Tribunal within the 42 day period.

What is Mrs Taylor's explanation for not complying with the rules? Does her explanation amounts to a good excuse for not complying with the rules? Mrs Taylor explained in letters written to the Registrar what her circumstances were. She is an ordinary working person, not legally qualified, and unable to afford full legal representation. She did the case herself in the Industrial Tribunal. She has done the case herself today. She has to deal with these problems herself. It is understandable that she does not fully appreciate the significance of all the documents she receives. She does not have the necessary legal knowledge to be able to cope with legal documents. She said she was confused by the documents. She accepts that she has consulted a solicitor three times about her case, but she cannot afford to see her solicitor regularly. She goes along to see him, with documents she has received, at intervals, when she can afford to pay for his services. In these circumstances, she said did not know whether she could appeal or not. She did not know the address of the Appeal Tribunal. She did not realise that the time limit had passed. She was not aware of the detailed rules. She reminded me a number of times during the hearing about the problem of meeting the expenses of a solicitor. She made it clear that her intention has always been to appeal this decision. She is convinced that she has good grounds for appealing.

I have taken note of all those matters. In my view, although they explain the problems that Mrs Taylor had in bringing an appeal, (and I fully appreciate them), they do not excuse failure to observe the time limits. There is not a different law for laymen than for people who are represented. The same rule applies to everybody. I may be more ready to accept an excuse from a person who is not legally represented, but the explanation has to be carefully examined.

I agree with Mr Palmer's submission that in this case there really is no good excuse. Mrs Taylor was competent enough to conduct her own case before the Industrial Tribunal. When she got the decision she knew she was dissatisfied with it. The enclosed notes and the IT9 explained what to do if you are dissatisfied. You can apply for a review. You can also appeal. She took legal advice from the firm of solicitors, Battens. She applied for a review within time, but it was rejected promptly. The notice of rejection of the review was sent out on 24th July 1995. The Notice of Appeal was not served until 16th October 1995. There has not been any explanation that amounts to a good excuse for failing to serve the Notice of Appeal in time. In those circumstances, the Registrar was right to refuse the extension. I dismiss the appeal.