United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in Person
For the Respondent	No appearance by Or on behalf Of the Respondent


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. This is an old case. The Appellant commenced these proceedings by an Originating Application presented on 26 September 1997. He complained of unfair dismissal by his former employer CAM Systems Ltd.
2. The case was heard at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal on 19 December 1997 and 13 February 1998. The claim was then dismissed by a decision with summary reasons. Extended reasons for that decision were promulgated on 15 May 1998. Against that decision the Appellant appealed in time. That appeal was dismissed at a preliminary hearing on which I sat on 2 December 1998.
3. He also applied for a review. His first application was made on 8 March 1998 and dismissed by the Chairman on 23 March 1998.
4. The Appellant then sought to resurrect the matter by letters to the Employment Tribunal written on 22 September and 3 October 1999 after the Respondent company went into liquidation.
5. On 17 October 1999 he made a further application for review. That application was dismissed by the Regional Chairman, Mrs C Tribe by a decision promulgated on 4 November 1999.
6. Against that review decision the Appellant entered a Notice of Appeal on 1 February 2000, some 46 days out of time. His application for an extension of time was refused by the Registrar on 17 March 2000. Against that order he now appeals.
7. Extension of time for appealing will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. It is for the Appellant to give a full, honest and acceptable explanation for the delay in lodging the Notice of Appeal. See Aziz –v- Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd (2000) IRLR 111, upholding the guidance given by Mummery J in United Arab Emirates –v- Abdelghafar (1995) ICR 65.
8. The explanation given by Mr Nobbs is that after the company went into liquidation on September 1999 he corresponded with Mr Stephen Rout who was appointed liquidator. He submits that the liquidator was not frank with him. He hoped that they could resolve their differences through the liquidator and thereby save the time and expense of an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. However, he makes it clear that he does not suggest that the liquidator asked him to hold up this appeal against the Regional Chairman's review decision whilst those discussions were continuing.
9. I am not satisfied that that is a good explanation for the delay in lodging the Notice of Appeal, particularly bearing in mind what Mr Nobbs wrote in his letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal requesting an extension of time, dated 13 February 2000. In that letter he said this: -

"When the above decision appealed against was made, I was unaware that that decision could be appealed against, as there was no point in law, I could think of, that an appeal could be based upon."

10. I accept that Mr Nobbs feels genuinely aggrieved at the outcome of the original Tribunal hearing. However, the public interest requires finality in judicial proceedings. It seems to me that there is no good reason for extending time for an appeal in the particular circumstance of this case and accordingly I must dismiss this appeal against the Registrar's order.