[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Miah v. Tower Hamlets College [2000] UKEAT 96_00_2006 (20 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/96_00_2006.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 96_00_2006, [2000] UKEAT 96__2006

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in Person
For the Respondent	MR SINCLAIR CRAMSIE (of Counsel) Messrs Eversheds Senator House 85 Queen Victoria Street London EC4V 4LJ


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. At all relevant times the Appellant Ms Miah was employed by the Respondent college as a lecturer. On 20 May 1999 she presented an Originating Application to the Stratford Employment Tribunal complaining of race and sex discrimination. I am not concerned with the further complaint originally made under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. The complaint was resisted and came on for hearing before an Employment Tribunal chaired by Mr B C Buckley on 13 –15 October 1999 at which hearing the Appellant represented herself. By a decision promulgated with extended reasons and dated 15 November 1999 the discrimination complaints were dismissed. Time for appealing against that decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal expired on 26 December 1999.
3. The Appellant did not lodge her Notice of Appeal until 11 January 2000. She then applied for an extension of time for appealing. Having considered the written representations of the parties the Registrar dismissed that application by an order dated 1 March 2000. Against that order the Appellant now appeals to me.
4. Time limits for appealing to this Tribunal must be strictly observed. Only in exceptional circumstances will an extension of time be granted. In United Arab Emirates –v- Abdelghafar (1995) ICR 65, 72(c). Mummery J posed 3 questions for consideration when exercising the courts discretion as to whether or not to grant an extension. First to ask what is the explanation for the default, second to ask whether it provides a good excuse for the default and thirdly, to determine whether there are circumstances which justify the Employment Appeal Tribunal taking the exceptional step of granting an extension of time.
5. The principles set out in Mummery J's judgment in that case have been approved by the Court of Appeal in Aziz –v- Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd (2000) IRLR 111. There the question was put simply in this way; has the Appellant provided a full, honest and acceptable explanation for the delay in appealing?
6. The reasons put forward by Ms Miah for the delay in appealing in this case are, it seems to me wholly historical. She refers to the effect of the death of her former father-in-law who died on 10 August 1999. A threat by her former husband who had abducted her children in August and September 1999 and a car accident in which she received a serious head injury on 1 January 1995. Also certain discussions with her employers. None of these events explain, it seems to me, why she did not put in her Notice of Appeal between 15 November and 26 December 1999. It follows that I am not satisfied that she has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in this case, let alone a good excuse for the default.
7. In the absence of an acceptable explanation, it seems to me that there are no grounds for interfering with the Registrar's order in this case; consequently this appeal must be dismissed.