[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Askew v Hare Wine & Minerals Ltd [1997] UKEAT 1134_96_2701 (27 January 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1134_96_2701.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 1134_96_2701

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR M JOHNSTONE (Representative) Reebo & Parker-Smith Employment Law Specialists Merlin House 122-126 Kilburn High Road London NW6 4HY


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against a Chairman's refusal to supply extended reasons. The grounds on which he refused the request was that it had been made out of time, and no satisfactory explanation had been given for it not having been made in time.

The reason which had been put forward by the prospective Appellant, Mr Askew, was contained in his letter of 8 October 1996. Essentially he was saying that the reason why he had not asked in time, was because he had had shingles. In a succinct notification of the decision, the Chairman indicated that he had refused the request as it was out of time and that the reason given for delay was not accepted as a plausible excuse.

It is to be noted that in the Notice of Appeal dated 13 January 1997 the third paragraph of the document reads as follows:

"The appellant will submit that had the extended reasons been provided then the appellant would never have appealed against the Chairman's decision to uphold his dismissal."

It has been suggested to us that there may have been a typographical error. We of course cannot comment on that. But it does seem to us having had regard to the reasons given by the Chairman in his decision, that the third paragraph might well represent the Appellant's considered view, because it seems to us having read the Summary Reasons, that the Chairman had provided a compelling analysis, albeit in shortened form, of the reason why the complaint of the Applicant had been dismissed. He had alleged that he was an employee of the Respondent company and was entitled to a redundancy payment.

The conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal was that he was not an employee. The facts briefly are set out in the Summary Reasons but the issue concerned the question of the status of the complainant as a Director of the Respondent company. It is common knowledge that some directors are employees and others are not. We have no reason to believe that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in its summary form, could be criticised, and therefore it would be illogical to think that Extended Reasons would lead to any different conclusion.

Accordingly we think that the Appellant was correct to submit that had the Extended Reasons been provided he would never have appealed. It seems to us in all these circumstances that the appeal as such does not raise an arguable point of law. This was the exercise by the Tribunal of its discretion and we do not consider that they have in any way misdirected themselves. Accordingly the appeal will be dismissed.