United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED
For the Respondent	THE RESPONDENT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Peter Edwards against the Registrar's refusal to extend time for his appeal in the matter Western v Edwards.

Mr Edwards is not represented and has indicated that he will not be attending. He has been told that the matter will, if that is the case, be dealt with on the papers, which is now what I propose to do.

1. On 3rd November 1999 Mr Western lodged an IT1 for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, his employment period having been from 26th July 1998 to 1st September 1999, a period of a year, a month and a bit.
2. On 10th November 1999 Mr Edwards lodged his IT3.
3. On 25th February 2000 there was a hearing at the Employment Tribunal with both parties appearing in person. On 6th March 2000 the decision was sent to the parties. It was decision of the tribunal sitting at Exeter under the chairmanship of Mr C G Toomer and was unanimous, and was:

"(1) the applicant was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed;

(2) the respondent must pay the applicant £1,449 as compensation for unfair dismissal;

(3) The respondent must pay the applicant £90 as an unlawful deduction from pay."

4. On 18th April 2000 the Employment Appeal Tribunal received from Mr Edwards a Notice of Appeal that was one day out of time. It was hand-written on the standard printed form and brief but was accompanied by a typed chronology and a typed skeleton argument. The Notice of Appeal itself is quite short.
5. On 5th May 2000 he was told that his Notice of Appeal was out of time and was asked whether he wished to apply for an extension. On 13th May 2000 he did apply for an extension of time. The Notice of Appeal had been posted, he said, on the very morning of the deadline day. It is hard, though, in the communication of the 13th May to see any reason emerging for why the matter had been delayed as long as it had been. The period, after all, is not a short one, a full 42 days, and no apparent reason was given why a Notice of Appeal was not lodged within that stipulated period.
6. On 2nd August 2000 the Registrar made an order refusing to extend time. The order reads in part, after reference to Rule 3(2) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993:

"AND UPON due consideration of paragraph 3(1) of the Practice Direction (Employment Appeal Tribunal – Procedure) where it is clearly the responsibility of the Appellant to ensure that an appeal is submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal within 42 days

AND UPON consideration of the Judgment given in UNITED ARAB EMIRATES AND (1) MR ABDELGHAFAR (2) DR A K ABBAS

IT IS CONSIDERED that there has been shown no exceptional excuse why the Notice of Appeal could not have been presented within the time limit laid down

AND IT IS ORDERED that the application for an extension of time in which to present the Noticed of Appeal is refused"

7. On 3rd August 2000 Mr Edwards appealed against the Registrar's Order.
8. That Abdelghafar case provides guidelines for this kind of application. Under Abdelghafar the Registrar, or the President on appeal from the Registrar, can expect to see reasons being set out honestly and fully as to the reason for failure to lodge within the 42 day period and to see whether those reasons thus given can amount to a good ground for the exceptional course of extending time. Another case that one has to have in mind in this kind of application is Aziz v Bethnal Green where one of the arguments in the Court of Appeal was that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was stricter in its relation to compliance with time requirements than the Court of Appeal was with applications to the Court of Appeal which were out of time. It is true that many cases at the Employment Appeal Tribunal are struck out on very short elapses of time. A strict view is habitually taken in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and in Aziz v Bethnal Green the Court of Appeal did not at all criticise that stricter practice. Bearing in mind the guidelines in Abdelghafar and the line taken by the Court of Appeal in Aziz v Bethnal Green, I first of all see no good reason emerging from the papers for delay on Mr Edwards' part. He may have delayed in order that a review might be asked of the Employment Tribunal and he may have delayed to await to find what that outcome would be, but that is no good ground for delaying a Notice of Appeal. Indeed, no good ground, in my view, emerges for the delay or for the exceptional course (the indulgent course) of granting an extension of time, even where the delay is as short as it was in this case. Finding no such good reason and no such good grounds for the exceptional course, I must dismiss the appeal that Mr Edwards makes and accordingly refuse an extension of time.