United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON
For the Respondents	MR W BIRTLES (of Counsel) Lyons Davidson Bridge House 48-52 Baldwin Street Bristol BS1 1QD


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: On 22 December 1998 the Employment Tribunal promulgated its decision with extended reasons for rejecting the Applicant's complaint that he was unfairly dismissed and rejecting his personal injury complaint on the grounds that the Applicant was not entitled to pursue it before an Employment Tribunal.

1. The Applicant invited the Tribunal at the hearing to amend his Originating Application to allege discrimination on grounds of disability. That application was refused. The Tribunal exercised its discretion; the application was made out of time. Thus it is that the Applicant is entitled to pursue and pursue only his complaint that he was unfairly dismissed. It was against that decision that this appeal has been lodged by a Notice of Appeal dated 5 February 1999.
2. The Notice of Appeal was thus received 6 days outside the 42 day time limit and the Applicant was invited to explain why he was appealing out of time. He has put forward a number of reasons which I can deal with in turn. In the first place he says that his family has had the shock of two bereavements since Christmas of his father-in-law who was aged 90 and a sudden and unexpected bereavement of his nephew. Of course those matters are likely to have caused considerable distress and upset, but it is not without significance that by 21 January 1999, that is within the 42 day time limit, the Applicant had recovered sufficiently to enable him to go and seek advice from the Kingswood and District Citizens Advice Bureau whom he consulted on that day at a lengthy discussion with the advisor.
3. The Citizens Advice Bureau made an appointment for five days later, namely on 26 January 1999 at 2.00pm but they record that he did not keep his appointment. Mr Quinn tells me, and, I accept, that it escaped his memory, he was still feeling somewhat confused as a result of the bereavements and other matters to which he referred in his appeal to me.
4. No doubt, and I infer, that the reason why an appointment was made for 26 January was to enable the Citizens Advice Bureau to file a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Mr Quinn if in the light of their first meeting held on 21 January 1999, and the lengthy chat that he had, he decided that he would wish to go ahead with an appeal.
5. I am not prepared to accept as an explanation for the delay in this case, that the Applicant's two bereavements had made it impossible for him to comply with the time limit. He relies also on the fact that he had written to his trade union seeking their professional assistance which was refused on 20 January. By that stage there was still 12 days to file the appeal within time. He did not do so. I do not regard therefore the delay between the application to the union for assistance and their response to it as excusing the delay in lodging the Notice of Appeal.
6. Thirdly, he says that he requested Filton College to supply him with the reasons for his dismissal as required by law, but he had not been given those reasons. It seems to us that that does not constitute a relevant excuse for the delay in filing this Notice of Appeal. I take into account Mr Quinn's obvious poor health and his concerns that there may be some family problem such that there may be an inherited heart problem which might affect his children and the obvious concern that that would have upon him.
7. I also take into account the matters to which I have referred but on balance I have come to the conclusion that this is not a case where I probably should extend time. The decision not to permit the Applicant Mr Quinn to go ahead with the complaint of discrimination on grounds of disability is in any event a somewhat empty one. This was an experienced Tribunal Chairman, exercising a very general discretion with the assistance of his lay colleague and it seems to me that even if the appeal had gone ahead, it would have been most unlikely the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have been able to assist Mr Quinn.
8. Accordingly, in my view, he has not lost anything of value by the decision which I have arrived at, which is that the Registrar's order was right and that the appeal against it should be refused.