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 >> Wheeler v Marshall Plastics Ltd [1992] UKEAT 364_91_0107 (1 July 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/364_91_0107.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 364_91_0107, [1992] UKEAT 364_91_107 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR T S BATHO
MS S CORBY
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON
MR JUSTICE WOOD: This is an appeal by Mr Wheeler, who appears in person, from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading on the 10th June 1991. This is a preliminary hearing where we are looking to see whether there is an arguable point of law which brings the appeal within our jurisdiction to deal with it.
The Applicant had issued an Originating Application which is dated the 11th February 1991, in which he alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed by his employers Marshall Plastics Limited. It was a question of redundancy and he was arguing that he should not have been selected. That it was therefore unfair.
Mr Wheeler received the documentation. There was a Notice of Appearance and he received notification of the date of the hearing at Reading, which was Monday, 10th June.
On the evening of Monday 10th June, he was preparing his papers for the hearing which he had in his diary as Tuesday 11th June, when he recognised that he had got the date wrong in his diary. So on Tuesday 11th June, he rang up the offices of the Industrial Tribunal and told them about this. He tells us that the advice he received was that if when he saw the decision he did not like it he could appeal.
On Wednesday 12th June, Mr Wheeler consulted the Citizens Advice Bureau and he was told the same thing, namely, that if he did not like the decision in due course he could appeal.
The decision was promulgated on the 21st June 1991, even if it was sent by first class post it would be received on the 22nd possibly the 23rd June, and by a Notice of Appeal which is dated the 27th June, some two or three days later Mr Wheeler appealed to this Court. His Notice of Appeal, which is carefully set out, indicates that there were a number of issues of fact upon which he disagreed with the Industrial Tribunal. One cardinal issue of fact was whether one of those who might have been chosen for redundancy, a night supervisor, had not been employed as the Tribunal found for four years longer than he had, but for something like four or five years shorter. That would be a vital point to examine if the matter had been reheard.
These are issues of fact. It is quite impossible for us to assist Mr Wheeler in what may have been a perfectly sound and genuine case which needed investigation. We can only deal with errors of law, there is no error of law on the face of this decision. Therefore it is not within our power to assist him or to order a rehearing or in any way to alter the decision which has been reached.
It follows therefore, from what we have said so far that this appeal at this preliminary hearing must be dismissed.
However, we do not end this judgment there, we have been caused some anxiety about what has occurred in this case and no doubt the Regional Chairman in due course will wish to examine the situation.
If Mr Wheeler is correct, and at the moment we see no reason to doubt him, he was advised that his remedy for misunderstanding the date, and after all he did ring up the very next morning after, was to appeal. That clearly, is the wrong advice to give to a person in his position because if the sole issue was fact no amount of appealing can help at all. The correct advice would be for him to write, not to `phone, but to write at once to the learned Chairman explaining exactly what had happened, asking him to set aside the decision and to allow a rehearing. If that letter had been sent off on the 11th, 12th or even 13th or 14th June 1991 it would have reached the learned Chairman before the decision was promulgated on the 21st June.
It is impossible for us to make any clear decision on the facts, but the advice to be given was so obvious that we would hope that in this type of situation in future, advice to seek a Review would be the glaringly obvious advice to give. We make no criticism because the facts are not within our certain knowledge, we only would suggest that the matter is worthy of consideration and investigation perhaps by the learned Regional Chairman who will no doubt do this in due course. We repeat we offer no immediate criticism at this stage, we do not know the facts, but if they were as we understand them to be then we are caused some anxiety.
It follows from what we have said that this appeal is dismissed.
