United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in Person
For the Respondent	Respondent neither Present Nor Represented


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. This is an appeal by Mr Layode, the Applicant before the London (North) Employment Tribunal sitting on 1 – 3 November 1999, against a decision made by the Registrar dated 17 March 2000, refusing his application for an extension of time for appealing against the Employment Tribunal's decision dismissing his complaint of racial discrimination and refusing to order compensation for what was found to be his unfair dismissal by the Respondent, Thistle Hotels Plc.
2. The Employment Tribunal decision was promulgated with extended reasons on 16 November 1999. The 42-day time limit for appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal expired on 28 December 1999. Mr Layode, who appears before me today has told me that he received the usual letter from the Employment Tribunal with his copy of that decision informing him that he had 42 days from the date of that decision in which to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. By a letter dated 28 December 1999, but in fact written on 28 November 1999 the Applicant applied to the Employment Tribunal for a review of the original decision. By a review decision promulgated on 21 December 1999 the Chairman, Mrs J L Hill, dismissed the review application. She commented that the points raised in the review application were more appropriately the basis for an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
3. It was not until 1 February 2000, 35 days out of time, that the Applicant lodged his Notice of Appeal with the Employment Appeal Tribunal. His grounds of appeal consisted of a copy of his letter misdated 28 December 1999 sent to the Chairman requesting a review.
4. The appeal being out of time, the Applicant made application for extension of time to the Registrar by letter dated 3 February 2000. That application was opposed by the Respondents solicitors by letter dated 24 February to which the Applicant responded in turn by letter of 9 March 2000. His grounds for seeking an extension of time were:

(1) that he was misled by the Chairman into thinking that time for appealing ran from the date of the review decision, not the original decision. That is, for an appeal against the original decision. I reject that contention. The time for appealing the review decision was 42 days from the date of that decision; nothing has been put before me to indicate that the Applicant was misled into thinking that the time for appealing the original decision had somehow been extended to run for 42 days from the date of the review decision.

(2) That the advice he received from the Citizen's Advice Bureau compounded his misunderstanding under (1) above

(3) That he had always complied with the Employment Tribunal instructions throughout the proceedings.

(4) That delay was contributed to by the Citizen's Advice Bureau looking around, unsuccessfully for an employment solicitor to represent him.

(5) That solicitor's for a charity to whom he wrote were also unable to assist him.

5. Having considered the parties' representation the Registrar declined to extend time by order of 17 March 2000. Hence this appeal.
6. It is well established within this jurisdiction that time limits for appealing must be strictly observed. It will only be in exceptional circumstances that an extension of time will be granted. The principles upon which the discretion to extend time will be exercised are helpfully collected and explained by the former President, Mummery J in United Arab Emirates –v- Abdelghafar (1995) ICR 65. A challenge to the strict approach laid down in that case recently failed before the Court of Appeal in Aziz –v- Bethnal Green City challenge Co Ltd (2000) IRLR 111. Before extending time it will be necessary for the Applicant to show a full, honest and acceptable explanation for delay in appealing.
7. In the present case I find the explanation put forward by the Applicant unacceptable. There is no reason why an appeal could not have been lodged within time (a) at the time when the review application (in identical terms to the grounds of appeal) was made on 28 November 1999 or possibly (b) on receipt of the Chairman's review decision, which referred specifically to the possibility of an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Delay caused by seeking legal representation is not a good excuse for default. See Abdelghafar page 71F. Nor is delay in waiting for the outcome of a review application a good excuse.
8. Finally, the Applicant tells me that he suffers from poor eyesight. In these circumstances he has asked me to consider a 10 page written submission which was served on the Respondent and on this court. I have done so. It is devoted solely to the Applicants view of the merits or de-merits of the Employment Tribunal proceedings and ultimate decision. That is not a matter of any real significance in this appeal. I am not required to carry out a mini-hearing in order to judge the substantive merits of the appeal.
9. In short, I can see no grounds for interfering with the Registrar's decision and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.