United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P METANIE (In Person)
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against the Registrar's Order refusing to extend time to Mr Metanie in which to enter a notice of appeal which was out of time by some 41 days. The appeal from the Registrar's Order is itself out of time, I can deal with that second one first. It seems to me that the justice of the case requires that I should extend time for appealing from the Registrar's Order, 15 days is well out of time \ and I recognise that there is an informal method by which an indication that an appeal is to be made from that order can be accepted as a notice of appeal from it. But because I have taken the view that this is a case in which it would be only just to extend time in which to enter a notice of appeal, it would I think be unjust to exercise my discretion not to extend time for appealing from the Registrar's Order , and I extend time.

In relation to the time in which to enter notice of appeal, the position is as follows: There was an Industrial Tribunal hearing at London (North) on 25 March 1998. It was there to adjudicate upon Mr Metanie's complaints of breach of contract and unfair dismissal. In paragraph 2 of their decision the Industrial Tribunal identified the issues in the case and then proceeded to set out their findings. Their conclusion, ultimately, was that his Originating Application should be dismissed.

That hearing took place on 25 March 1998. According to a stamp against the Chairman's signature, the Extended Reasons were signed on 26 May 1998, and underneath that there is a stamp indicating that the decision was sent to the parties and was entered in the register. I have to say that it is not clear from the copies which I have seen of that document, whether the stamp is saying that the decision had been sent to the parties on the 26 April, which would of course be a false date since the decision itself was only made on 26 May, or whether it says 26 May. At all events Mr Metanie tells me, and I accept that he only received a copy of this decision on 27 July after he had got in touch with the Industrial Tribunal. Whether it was because there was some mismanagement at the Industrial Tribunal, or because it was lost in the post, or because there might have been problems with his mail box. (There were other people using the building and indeed there were builders working on the flat upstairs) does not seem to me to matter. I have no difficulty in accepting that the honest explanation for the delay in this case, was that he did not receive the decision until 27 July.

He also tells me, and I accept, that the leaflet that would have accompanied the decision when it was sent out in the first place, explaining to the parties what their rights were in relation to an appeal, was not enclosed with a copy of the decision which was sent to him at that time. It is true that he was aware that there was a right to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he may have become aware of that as a result of having received a summary decision in this case, which he asked to be put into a Extended Reasons form, or he may have been aware of it as a result of his own researches which he has conducted at the Croydon Central Library which is close by where he lives.

The notice of appeal was received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 17 August 1998. He had visited the Employment Appeal Tribunal and had acted very promptly so soon as he received the decision. It seems to me wrong not to extend time in the circumstances of this case. Had he received the leaflet with the decision on 27 July, I might have taken a different view, because he would then have known that he should have acted with extreme urgency and contacted the Employment Appeal Tribunal to explain what had happened.

In the unusual circumstances of this case therefore, I think it right in the exercise of my discretion to extent time. It would be hard for an unrepresented person to have acted any differently than Mr Metanie has in this case. Having found that he only received the decision on 27 July, it seems to me to be right that time should be extended.

Having said that, I express no view and not to be taken to expressing any view as to the prospects of success of the notice of appeal passing through the preliminary hearing stage.

For those reasons the appeal against the Registrar's Order will be allowed. Time will therefore be extended to enable it to be treated as though it was lodged within time.