United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	THE APPELLANTS NEITHER BEING PRESENT OR REPRESENTED
For the Respondent	THE RESPONDENT NEITHER BEING PRESENT OR REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against an interlocutory decision of an Industrial Tribunal which is set out in a letter dated 23rd September 1997 to the respondents. In that letter the tribunal write as follows:

"Thank you for your letter dated 12 September 1997 and enclosures including the Notice of Appearance received at this office 16 September 1997.

A Chairman of Tribunals to whom your information was referred, has instructed that I write and inform you that he does not agree to validate your Notice of Appearance as you had sufficient time from the date of notice of the Originating Application to either enter a Notice of Appearance or apply for an extension of time. It is now too late."

The nature of the complaint to which the respondents were wishing to enter a Notice of Appearance was unfair dismissal. The complaint, the IT1, was received by the respondents on 18th July 1997 having been received by the Industrial Tribunal on 14th July 1997. The complaint related to the dismissal which occurred on or about 6th June 1997.

On the date when the IT1 was received by the Company, the Managing Director was away on holiday, returning about a week later. For a whole series of reasons, none of them particularly convincing in themselves, the Company failed to file their Notice of Appearance within the 21 day time limit provided by the Rules. Their Notice of Appearance should have been with the Industrial Tribunal some time in the second week of August.

The Industrial Tribunal then communicated with the respondents, giving them Notice of Hearing, that document was received on 12th September 1997. The Company immediately responded:

"... that all judgments be made on the enclosed documentation, as constraints on my business make it impossible for me to attend personally for the hearing."

It was in response to that letter, that the tribunal wrote as I have indicated.

Accordingly the employer's appealed to this Court. They point out that a late Notice of Appearance is to be treated as an application for an extension of time. We have been provided with an affidavit setting out the Company's explanation for being late.

It seems to us that the interests of justice normally require that an extension of time be granted unless there is any reason to believe that the applicant will be prejudiced by the grant of such an extension.

What the Company were seeking from the Industrial Tribunal, was an acceptance by them that they would consider the Company's documentation in arriving at their conclusion on the adjudication on the unfair dismissal complaint. It seems to us that it was obviously wrong for the Industrial Tribunal not to have agreed to look at that material and take it into account before arriving at their decision.

This was a case where the complainant could have put in his complaint in September and still have been within time. There is no suggestion that the complainant will be prejudiced or would have been prejudiced by the application which the Company made, and no indication that the tribunal have taken into account the interests of justice or prejudice to the parties in arriving at their conclusion. Accordingly, it seems to us, that this was a decision of an Industrial Tribunal which cannot be allowed to stand and we allow the appeal, no injustice will be done by doing so.