United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS R M AUSTEN (the Appellant in Person)


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Registrar, pursuant to Rule 21, not to allow the appeal of the Applicant to proceed since it was out of time.
2. The Applicant was employed by the Respondents until 2001. She brought proceedings alleging a number of complaints including discrimination on the ground of sex against both Respondents and complaints against the second Respondent of constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract claim relating to sick pay and holiday pay.
3. The Tribunal met on three days in 2002 at Ashford, Kent, Chairman Miss V G Wallis with Mrs P J Greenman and Mr F W J Redman; and in a reserved decision with Extended Reasons, sent on 18 April 2002 the Tribunal dismissed all of the Applicant's claims, bar one which was conceded in respect of holiday pay and in respect of which it ordered a sum to be paid.
4. The Applicant had not been best served by her union representatives during the course of her complaints and she had suffered from bouts of poor health and was not receiving proper support from her employer at the relevant time. The Tribunal indicated that it had sympathy with the Applicant's position.
5. The time for making an appeal against that decision expired on 30 May 2002. The Applicant made her appeal and signed it on 23 October 2002. Accompanying it was a 70-page letter dealing with a number of matters. The appeal was lodged at the EAT on 31 October 2002, five months out of time.
6. In her Order the Registrar paid attention to the relevant authorities which are Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co. Ltd [2000] IRLR 111 and Abdelghafar v United Arab Emirates [1995] ICR 65. The Registrar paid special attention to the judgment which includes this:

71C "…there is no excuse, even in the case of an unrepresented party, for the ignorance of time limits."

The Registrar found no exceptional reason why an appeal should not have been presented on time.

7. Against that decision, the Applicant appeals on the basis, it seems to me, of two matters. The first is that she did not receive proper advice from her trade union and its solicitors; and the second is sickness. As to the first, it is plain that the Applicant was in the hands of her trade union from before the case started, i.e. 2000, until the end of the first day of the hearing in 2002. The Applicant told me that she had presented the Extended Reasons of the Tribunal when she got them to the union's solicitors on or about 20 April. She had an acknowledgement from them. Also, she was in communication with the Registrar, for on 25 April 2002 the Registrar wrote to the Applicant pointing out in heavy type the 42-day time limit which applied in respect of any appeal.
8. On 10 January 2003 submissions were made by the Respondent against the exercise of discretion to allow the appeal to be heard. The Respondent submits that the Applicant was in the hands of persons who were capable of giving skilled advice. I have mentioned the union's solicitors but also (within the time limit) on 27 May 2002 there is correspondence from the Applicant's MP confirming advice he gave the Applicant in his surgery that he had put the matter into the hands of the area director of USDAW.
9. The Applicant's case was in the hands of skilled advisers well within the time limit and no reason has been given to the Registrar or to me as to why they failed to submit an appeal on her behalf.
10. As to the second ground, the medical matters, it is contended by the Respondent that the Applicant was plainly in a position to seek advice and to take a number of steps. These included writing to the Prime Minister and to Mrs Blair and making complaints to the Law Society: see paragraphs 3 to 7 of the letter from the Respondent's representative.
11. The Applicant relies upon her medical condition. In the course of her appeal the she submitted twelve heavy brown envelopes containing much material. My attention has been taken to envelope 12 which contains a package dealing with sick notes and wage slips. These appear to me to be directed entirely to the period of the employment relationship which ended in 2001. Mrs Austen says to me that she has continuous sick notes thereafter but has not produced any to me. It seems to me that even if I had those sick notes they do not overcome the difficulty which she faces when it is plain that she was in the hands of skilled advisors.
12. I have considered, as has the Registrar, the United Arab Emirates case and in my judgment the Applicant does not cross the threshold. I do not accept that there is a rare and exceptional reason explaining the failure to meet the deadline and providing a good excuse for it. I do not see any other exceptional circumstances which might justify my exercising discretion to allow this appeal five months out of time. The appeal is dismissed.