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 >> Buckwen Electro Platers v Baker [1997] UKEAT 1233_96_0702 (7 February 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1233_96_0702.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 1233_96_702, [1997] UKEAT 1233_96_0702
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MRS J M MATTHIAS
BUCKWEN ELECTRO PLATERS APPELLANT
MR A BAKER RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellants | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT |
| For the Respondent |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is a point of law in relation to an appeal against the refusal by an Industrial Tribunal Chairman to provide Extended Reasons for a Decision which was contained in writing dated 7 August 1996 and sent to the parties on 12 August.
The request for Extended Reasons was faxed through to the Tribunal on 18 September and was therefore out of time. The Reasons should have been requested within 21 days of 12 August. No explanation was put forward as to why the request was being made so late and the Industrial Tribunal Chairman accordingly, refused to give Extended Reasons.
A Notice of Appeal has been filed in this case. The Appellant has not appeared before us today. He is not required to do so but we have taken into account what he has said in this case and the Notice of Appeal.
It seems to us that this was a discretion to be exercised by the Industrial Tribunal Chairman. We are not satisfied that there is any arguable point of law to suggest that he has exercised his discretion in any way improperly. Furthermore, we see no good reason for thinking that the Summary Reasons of the Industrial Tribunal would be capable of a successful challenge even if Extended Reasons were given.
For these reasons we dismiss this appeal.