[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Murphy v. Palmier Plc & Anor [2000] UKEAT 971_99_1804 (18 April 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/971_99_1804.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 971_99_1804

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED.
For the 1st Respondent. For the 2nd Respondent.	NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED. MISS E GODFREY (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Sprecher Grier Halberstam Lincoln House 300 High Holborn London WC1V 7JH


 


MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC:

1. This case comes before us as an appeal by the prospective appellant Miss Heather Murphy against the decision of the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal given on 6 October 1999 refusing her an extension of time for lodging an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal out of time against the decision of an Employment Tribunal given at Stratford in extended reasons sent to the parties on 9 July 1999, after a hearing on 2 July 1999. The decision of the Employment Tribunal was a rejection of the prospective applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal, which in its turn had itself been lodged with the Tribunal out of time. It had been received at the Tribunal on 9 April 1999, that is more than three months after the effective date of termination of her employment which was found to be 31 December 1998. Having thus missed the time limit at the Tribunal and being turned away there, Miss Murphy sought to reargue that exercise of the Tribunal's discretion by lodging an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but also managed to miss the time for lodging that appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
2. In those circumstances, there being no satisfactory explanation of the delay, or of the cumulative delay, which the Registrar felt warranted an extension of the time for appealing, that application was dismissed on 6 October 1999. The prospective appellant then sought to appeal the Registrar's decision to the full Tribunal and it is that appeal that is now before us. The matter has previously come before another division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, having been listed for hearing on 14 January 2000, but on that occasion an application was made and granted for the proceedings to be adjourned because this Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter and a compromise agreement was to be concluded between them. Over three months have now elapsed since that, and the matter was accordingly directed to be listed again before us today. Some four days ago, correspondence was received from solicitors acting on behalf of the prospective appellant confirming that the matter had now been settled, in terms of a compromise agreement which had been agreed between solicitors and that they had instructions from their client that she would sign such an agreement. However there was a practical difficulty as she was presently abroad and they were not sure whether they would be able to obtain her signature on the agreement prior to today's hearing. However the letter dated 14 April 2000, which is before us, makes it quite clear that the matter had now been agreed. The solicitors indicated clearly that they did not consider it necessary for further costs to be incurred on the part of either party or for this Tribunal to be engaged on the matter at all, as it was in their own express words: "Something which is now agreed." They concluded by saying there was nothing more they could say to the Tribunal in any event whatever course this Tribunal was minded to take. They would not be proposing to attend this hearing on the proposed appellant's behalf.
3. The solicitors to the 2^nd respondent, (the only respondent concerned in the proceedings at all in a practical sense, since the 1^st respondent is in receivership) sent a confirmatory fax to the EAT office dated 14 April 2000, saying that a compromise agreement had been sent to the applicant's solicitors; and Miss Godfrey who appeared on that respondent's behalf before us, confirmed that the terms of the compromise agreement were satisfactory to her clients.
4. In those circumstances we are unanimously satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by allowing this appeal to remain on the files of the EAT any longer and we accordingly dispose of the whole matter by dismissing the proposed appellant's appeal from the order of the Registrar, refusing an extension of time for an appeal to this Tribunal against the Employment Tribunal's decision to be lodged. Miss Godfrey made a spirited attempt to persuade us to order the costs of her attendance, and those instructing her before us today, to be paid by the Appellant but we are not satisfied that the circumstances shown in this correspondence demonstrate the kind of unreasonable conduct on the part of the appellant or her solicitors which would warrant us making such an order, and accordingly we make no order as to the costs of today.