United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant
For the Respondents	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondents


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)

1. This is an appeal against the Registrar's Order refusing an extension of time for the lodging of a Notice of Appeal which was forty one days late. This morning, as has been explained to us, no one appears for Mr Din, the Appellant, but no one appears either for the First Respondent, Mr J Behan, or the Second Respondent, Aviation Defence International Group Ltd, and we have heard nothing to suggest that either of the Respondents has been delayed or has been attempting to come and found it impossible to get here or anything of that nature, and so we go on in the absence of all parties.
2. On 1 June 2001, there was a hearing at the Employment Tribunal. On 19 June the Decision was sent to the parties. It was the Decision of the Tribunal at Manchester, under the chairmanship of Mr D A Leahy and it was unanimous and was that the Applicants', Mr Din's, Originating Application was dismissed in respect of the claims of unfair dismissal and of racial discrimination.
3. On 31 July 2001 the forty two days that are allowed for the lodging of an appeal, which is measured from the sending out of the Decision to the parties, expired. On 7 September, Mr Din put that date to a Notice of Appeal and on 10 September 2001, the Employment Appeal Tribunal received that Notice of Appeal, forty one days out of time.
4. On 1 October 2001, Mr Din said that the reason why the Notice of Appeal was late was that he had been admitted to hospital with cancer. The Respondents were contacted, as is the Employment Appeal Tribunal's practice, but they opposed any extension of time.
5. On 22 October of last year Mr Din said that he had been admitted to hospital on 26 July 2001 - in other words at a date within the forty two day period - for an operation. On 1 November 2001 the Registrar, by Order, refused an extension of time and on 5 November, Mr Din indicated that he wished to appeal against the Registrar's Decision.
6. Today we have heard by e-mail that Mr Din says that he is not well enough to travel and that he is receiving treatment for cancer. It cannot suffice for Mr Din, or anyone else in his position, merely to state that he has attended hospital or has suffered some medical condition but, equally, it would be unfair to deny Mr Din the opportunity of putting in proper evidence on the subject to show that he truly was impaired as to, or denied, the ability to lodge a timely Notice of Appeal and so I will adjourn this matter generally in order that Mr Din, or someone on his behalf, could put in one or more affidavits.
7. They should cover these subjects: first of all his state of health generally in June, July and August 2001, with particular reference to his ability or not to complete a simple Notice of Appeal or, at the minimum, a letter explaining why he could not complete a Notice of Appeal. Secondly, whether he attended work in those months, or how otherwise his time was spent during those months. Thirdly, if he was admitted to hospital, something that indicates when he went in and when he came out.
8. Next, the effect on him in those months, of any treatment that he was given at the time. The evidence that needs to be lodged on his behalf on all questions relating to his health needs to include informed expert medical evidence such as, for example, evidence from his own GP or, if he went to hospital, evidence from the hospital doctors, staff or surgeons. He would be well advised to seek doctors' letters or medical certificates or hospital admission letters that confirm the case that he wishes to make relating to his general condition, as I mentioned it, in those three months.
9. If no such informed medical evidence is produced, well then, he must be aware that he runs a real risk that he will fail to obtain the extension of time for the lodging of his Notice of Appeal which he seeks.
10. I adjourn the case generally. It is to be restored not earlier than twenty eight days from today. It is to be restored when either satisfactory evidence, looking at it from his point of view, has been sufficiently acquired, or when it has proved to be the case that he will not be able to obtain such satisfactory evidence. When either of those positions has been arrived at, then the matter is to be restored. If it is not restored by seventy days from today, then the appeal will be dismissed without further notice.