United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR G P JONES (in Person)
For the Respondents	MR I ATACK (Solicitor) Messrs Kidstons & Co Solicitor 1 Royal Bank Place Buchanan Street Glasgow G1 3AA


 


RESERVED JUDGMENT

_____________________________________________________________________________

MR G P JONES APPELLANTS

- V -

3M HEALTHCARE LIMITED RESPONDENT

_____________________________________________________________________________

MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): Following a four day hearing which took place between 2 July and 21 August 1998, Mr G P Jones's applications, which he had brought against his former employers 3M Healthcare Limited, were dismissed. He had complained of discrimination on the grounds of sex, discrimination on the grounds of disability and unfair dismissal.

In the course of their extensive decision, which was promulgated and sent to the parties on 27 August 1998, the Industrial Tribunal accepted the evidence of a medical witness that the Applicant, Mr Jones suffers from severe clinical depression which they described as a long term illness with recurrent episodes. They went on to say that during those episodes, there are times when the Applicant is quite unable to lead a normal life and at the worst has to be hospitalised. It is beyond doubt that at those times that illness has a substantial adverse effect on his day to day activities, because he is quite unable to lead a normal life.

Time for appealing in this case expired one day before the Appellant's Notice of Appeal was received here. The Notice of Appeal is dated 7 October 1998 and was received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the normal course of post on 9 October 1998. Time expired on 8 October 1998.

The registrar refused to extend time. This is an appeal against her refusal. In exercising my discretion, I have regard to the helpful guidelines given in the case of United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] IRLR 243, to which both parties have made reference. Mr Jones submits the reason why he did not get his Notice of Appeal in in time was either because the postal services failed to deliver the document in the normal course of post or alternatively, because he was suffering from severe clinical depression which is quite an horrendous illness, as he described it, which most people do not understand. He pointed out that a number of those who suffer from this illness, take their own lives. He says it debilitates and immobilises its victims. A feature of the illness is that the victim is only able to cope with one thing at a time. He suggests that this Court, in accordance with the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Legislation, should when deciding whether to extend time fully give effect to people's mental illnesses where that affects their day to day lives.

He explained that he had been in hospital for two days and one night during the relevant 42 day period, otherwise he was broadly able to cope with his daily life, albeit on the limited basis which I have described. He holds a driving licence and was able to visit his general practitioner by driving. He also saw his medical practitioner, so he tells me, on other occasions, but did so on foot.

He is able to live on his own and cope with his life, but with difficulty. He said that he had told his mother of the 42 day time period in the sense that she had entered in her diary with some kind of mark, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and his mother had telephoned him on the day when he submitted his notice of appeal, asking him what the mark was there for and upon being reminded of the date he then wrote out his Notice of Appeal and posted it to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, having spoken to a member of staff here who had emphasised to him the importance of getting the Notice of Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in time.

He was invited to explain why it was that he could not have done this much earlier. He responded by saying that he had done what he perceived to be his best; that he was determined not to allow himself to become under stress which might have the effect of him being admitted as an in-patient to a mental hospital, which he wished to avoid. He said that if he had not felt well enough on the day in which he wrote out his Notice of Appeal, it might well have been received even later than it was, but he stressed that at all times he was acting in good faith and doing the best he could.

I regard this as a very difficult decision to have to make. The time limits as their name implies, are limits of time and not targets to be aimed at. It is likely to be only in rare and exceptional cases that the time will be extended, even though the discretion which is given to the Court is a wide one. It seems to me that the Court must have regard, not just to the interest of the parties themselves, but also to the wider public interest, namely the due administration of justice. In matters of this kind, it would be entirely in accordance with authority to place greater emphasis on the aspect of public policy, than on the interest of the parties, which of course will not be ignored.

From Mr Jones's perspective, he believes he did his best, but I have to say I am not satisfied that he was ever in a state during the 42 day period, bar the two days when he was in hospital, when he would not have been capable of lodging a Notice of Appeal. He was able to communicate with the Employment Tribunal asking them for an extension of time for a particular purpose. It would have been possible for him, it seems to me, if not on the same day at least on one of the 42 days, either to have lodged a Notice of Appeal or to have asked the Employment Appeal Tribunal for an extension of time. When the time problem was drawn to his attention by his mother, he was able to act immediately at length, and to communicate with the Employment Appeal Tribunal by telephone.

It seems to me that no reasonable person could have formed the view that it was safe to post a letter even by first class post the day before it was due to arrive. Normal rules as to service of documents by first class mail is that it is deemed to arrive on the second working day after posting.

It seems to me that the reason why this appeal was lodged late was because Mr Jones left it to the last minute to start his appeal and therefore ran the risk that he would be out time, as occurred in this case.

I am very sympathetic to his mental state, but it does seem to me that the wider interests of the public and the interest of the Respondent, who are entitled to regard the expiry of the 42 day limit as putting an end to their involvement in the case, prevail in this case. Accordingly, and not without reluctance, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed.