United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1330_95_3004

Appeal No. PA/1330/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 30 April 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

(IN CHAMBERS)

---

MR D VINTER          APPELLANT

V D BATEMAN LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR D VINTER

IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Donald Vinter against the order of the Registrar of this Tribunal. She made an order on 17 January 1996 under the reference of a potential appeal number 1330/95. She refused an application for leave to enter a notice of appeal out of time.

The application was made by the Appellant, Mr Vinter. When he was notified of the Registrar's order he wrote to this Tribunal on 19 January saying that he wanted to appeal against that refusal to extend time.

Mr Vinter attended to argue the appeal himself. He has acted in person throughout these proceedings. He has taken me through the relevant events down to today.

On 11 July 1994 Mr Vinter started the proceedings by an application to the Industrial Tribunal against his employer, D Bateman Ltd, claiming non-payment of redundancy pay and non-payment of salary.

The case was contested. At the hearing in the Industrial Tribunal at London (South) on 30 August 1994 the Tribunal unanimously decided that it had no jurisdiction to consider Mr Vinter's application for redundancy because he did not have two years' continuous service at the time he was made redundant. The summary reasons for that decision were sent to the parties on 17 October 1994.

Mr Vinter sought a review of that decision. That was submitted to the Industrial Tribunal, but the Chairman notified Mr Vinter on 14 December 1994 of the reasons why he would not grant the application for the review.

It appears that the question of an appeal was pursued but, unfortunately, Mr Vinter had not obtained extended reasons for the Tribunal's rejection of his case. Under the Appeal Tribunal Rules it is necessary, when a notice of appeal is served, to send with it a copy of the extended reasons for the decision. The reason for that Rule is that this Tribunal can only hear appeals and decide them if they raise a question of law. It is not normally possible to say that there is a question of law if you do not have the full written reasons which explain how the Tribunal reached the decision appealed. The problem that Mr Vinter had about the extended reasons is that, by the time he came to request them, he was too late under the Industrial Tribunal Rules. All this must have been confusing to him as a non-lawyer handling his own case. But the same Rules apply to people doing their own cases as to people who are legally represented. The Rules are clear. If extended reasons are to be requested, they must be requested orally at the hearing of the case in the Industrial Tribunal or in writing after the hearing is over but within 21 days of the date when the summary reasons have been sent to the parties.

Mr Vinter made his written application for extended reasons. It was refused. His appeal was set down here as a preliminary hearing. On 15 May 1995 Mr Vinter attended and this Tribunal dismissed his appeal because, in the absence of extended reasons, he could not go on with it.

What then happened is difficult to understand. But it seems clear from the documents that, when Mr Vinter got home, after the hearing here, he wrote again to the Industrial Tribunal at London (South) repeating his application for extended reasons so that he could proceed with the appeal. He wrote that letter on 18 May 1995, setting out why he needed the extended reasons. On 3 August 1995 a letter was sent to him by the Industrial Tribunal saying this:

"The Chairman of the Tribunal, which decided this case, has instructed me to advise you that your second request for extended reasons is declined in all the circumstances including the fact that your original request was well out of time and your appeal was dismissed on 15 May 1995."

A further letter was sent by the Regional Chairman of the Industrial Tribunals, Mrs Mason, on 5 October 1995 informed Mr Vinter that, if he was dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision or the Chairman's refusal of his application for a review, he could appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The letter stated:

"However, you should note that appeal lies on points of law only and that there is a time limit."

Mr Vinter then served on this Tribunal another notice of appeal dated 12 November 1995. It was received here on 13 November. In that notice of appeal that he was appealing against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, that he did not have two years' continuous service to claim redundancy. He explained that the Tribunal had refused his request for full written reasons. He complained that this was an abuse of the discretionary powers of the Tribunal.

It appears to have been overlooked by this Tribunal when it received the second notice of appeal that Mr Vinter had already served an earlier notice of appeal and that that appeal had been dismissed on 15 May 1995. When the second notice of appeal was received it was observed correctly that it was many, many months out of time from the decision appealed. For those reasons the Registrar considered whether or not there should be an extension of time. She refused that Mr Vinter said that he wanted to appeal. I am now hearing his appeal.

It seems, after discussing this matter with Mr Vinter, that his position is hopeless. I have read all the papers available. I have also taken note of the fact that we have received notification from Mrs Bateman that she does not intend to be present at the hearing today. The three reasons why this appeal seems hopeless are: first, Mr Vinter's appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal has already been heard in this Tribunal and was dismissed on 15 May 1995. You cannot appeal to this Tribunal twice in the same case. As the appeal has been heard and Mr Vinter was present when it was heard and dismissed, that is the end of it. The only thing that can be done, if we dismiss an appeal and the party is disappointed, is for that party to appeal to the Court of Appeal. So far as I have been able to ascertain from these papers, there has never been an appeal set in motion to the Court of Appeal. So, the first reason why the appeal is hopeless is that it has already been decided and dismissed. The second reason is that Mr Vinter is many months out of time. The time-limit for appealing is six weeks from the sending of the decision in the Industrial Tribunal. It was sent in October 1994. The second notice of appeal was received here on 13 November 1995. This Tribunal can, in exceptional cases, extend the time, but it cannot extend it where there is no good excuse for being out of time. There is no good excuse here. It is not a good excuse that the person is doing his own case. The same Rules apply whether you are doing your own case or whether you have lawyers to represent you. The third reason is that, despite two attempts to secure extended reasons from the Industrial Tribunal, Mr Vinter has not obtained any extended reasons. The Tribunal are entitled to refuse to give them when the request for them is made outside the time provided by the Rules. The two requests that were made were outside the time in the Industrial Tribunal Rules. Under the Rules of this Tribunal, you cannot go on with an appeal in most cases without having the extended written reasons.

For those three reasons, I dismiss the appeal against the Registrar's order.