United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE BYRT QC: This is an appeal against the decision of the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Southampton, which was promulgated on 17 July 1997. By that decision the Chairman struck out the Appellant's Originating Application dated 2 April 1997 in which he claimed compensation for unfair dismissal. He did so, because it was apparent, on the face of the application, that the Appellant had not been in continuous employment for the two year period required by the statute.

The decision was made on 17 July. The Appellant did not know of a decision having been made until he communicated with the Tribunal on 21 October. It was only then he says that he discovered the order had been made dismissing his application. He thereafter sought a review on 20 November. That application was also dismissed on 5 December. It is that decision which is now appealed by the Appellant.

The basis upon which he makes his appeal is that the Tribunal sent their decision not to himself personally, but to his solicitor, who had been named as his representative in the IT1. Quite plainly, the Tribunal Chairman, in coming to his decision not to review the decision, took into account the facts which had been alleged by the Appellant. He was plainly faced here with an application which was well out of time. He had to consider the reasons being advanced in support of the review.

The question which does arise is whether the Industrial Tribunal was right or was wrong in sending the order made on 17 July to the Appellant's named representative. It is quite plainly stated that the solicitor was representing the Appellant. It is plainly stated in the IT1. It is argued that the Industrial Tribunal were totally justified in taking the course that they did in communicating with them.

The Appellant has told us, in the course of the hearing today that, subsequent to 17 July, he was in communication with his solicitor (the same solicitor) about another matter and this issue of what was happening to the original application was not even raised or discussed.

In all the circumstances we think that the Tribunal Chairman approached this matter in the right way. The matter was for his discretion. We do not see that he has erred in any way in law. Accordingly, we think there are no grounds upon which we can allow this matter to go through for a full hearing. We dismiss this appeal.