BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Dell v Simons & Sons Laundrettes Ltd [1991] UKEAT 64_91_0509 (5 September 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/64_91_0509.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 64_91_0509, [1991] UKEAT 64_91_509 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR A CARTER-LENNON
(LAY REPRESENTATIVE)
50 Munro House
Murphy Street
LONDON
SE1 7AL
For the Respondents MR J L SHAW
(PERSONNEL ADVISER)
Shaw Personnel Service Ltd
The Cleeves
Nailsworth
Glos. G16 OPA
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by Miss Dell, through the representation of Mr Carter-Lennon, from a Decision of the learned Registrar of the 27th March of this year, when she refused to extend time for appealing.
The rules are clear that the time is 42 days from the date on which full written reasons for the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal were sent to the Appellant.
The Appellant alleged, before the Industrial Tribunal, that she had been unfairly dismissed without notice; without pay or holiday pay. The circumstances of her dismissal are clearly indicated from a letter which Mr Carter-Lennon has shown to me this morning, and dated 27th February 1990, dismissing Miss Dell summarily, from the 12th February. It says this in the second paragraph:
"Your instant dismissal without holiday pay was due to your fraudulent transactions in your position as manageress at our launderette at 29, Lower Marsh, London, SE1.
If you wish to refute the company's action we would be more than willing to produce witnesses to substantiate this claim."
She was dismissed; she brought proceedings; those proceedings were heard by an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) under the Chairmanship of Mr Bano on the 28th June 1990 and her application was dismissed.
The Reasons in summary form were sent on the 1st August 1990, some 4 days later. The Applicant wished to appeal and sent a form of a Notice of Appeal to this Court which was dated the 15th August 1990; it clearly included the summary Decision which was some two pages. Those papers were all returned to her and it was explained that if she wished to proceed with an appeal she should obtain the Decision in full form from the Industrial Tribunal and submit that with a Notice of Appeal to this Court.
Mr Carter-Lennon says that he pressed for full Reasons; in fact we now have them because Miss Dell sent them to us and they are on the file. They are dated the 18th December 1990. That being the start of the period of 42 days the Notice of Appeal was ultimately sent to this Court on the 14th February 1991, which is 17 days out of time.
Mr Carter-Lennon submits that the first document sent here is the real Notice of Appeal but even so the re-sending of that document relates to the date in February of this year. The question therefore, is, was the learned Registrar justified in exercising her discretion to refuse to extend time? In considering that of course, it is appropriate to consider the whole picture, including the case itself, and it is abundantly clear from a careful and full Judgment of some 8 pages which was sent on that 18th December that this was essentially a question of fact; that the Tribunal were of the view that the offence, which is indicated in the letter to which I have already referred was made out and that the reason for the dismissal was found. Indeed if one reads those reasons, there is no obvious ground of an error of law. What is said is that the evidence was all lies.
By way of explanation of what has occurred Mr Carter-Lennon says that he did not receive the full Reasons. It was pointed out to him that his writing is on the front of the copies which have been lodged with this Court; he now tells me that perhaps it slipped his memory and that he sent his copy of it to this Court. In fact we only seem to have a copy on the file and not the original, but in any event it is abundantly clear that he did received those full Reasons. Likewise he says that he did not receive the summary Reasons until just before Christmas. That cannot be right, they were sent out on the 1st August and indeed from the letter from this Court of the 20th August it is apparent that it was sent on here on Miss Dell's behalf, presumably by Mr Carter-Lennon. It seems to me quite clear therefore that his recollection about these matters is somewhat faulty.
Is there any reason before me for the failure to file the Notice of Appeal within the correct time? I am quite unable to discover any reason why it was not done, when the full Reasons are sent out the form IT9 is always sent with it, which explains the procedure for appeals and in looking at this whole matter and the way in which the learned Registrar was entitled to look at the matter, I can find no error in the Decision which she reached.
The real complaint here by Mr Carter-Lennon and Miss Dell is that the case against her was a "pack of lies", but that is an issue of fact not of law and that is essentially a matter for the Industrial Tribunal.
I can find therefore, no real grounds for the appeal here, but in any event it is out of time and I dismiss the appeal against the Order of the learned Registrar.
