[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ho v. Bond [2002] UKEAT 1454_01_2705 (27 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1454_01_2705.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1454_1_2705, [2002] UKEAT 1454_01_2705

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MS RECORDER SLADE QC:

1. This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Hon Kin Ho against the refusal of an Employment Tribunal to give extended reasons for its decision. The basis upon which that refusal was made that was that the request for extended reasons was made out of time. Mr Hon Kin Ho has indicated to this Employment Appeal Tribunal that he does not intend to be present at today's hearing and we accordingly decide the case on the papers before us.
2. Mr Bond was a delivery driver in the employment of Mr Hon Kin Ho, delivering Chinese food to various addresses. He was employed from 10 October 2000 until 4 January 2001. He claimed that an unlawful deduction of £100 has been made for an insurance excess. He had been involved in an accident in his car in the course of his duties and his employer sought to deduct £100 in respect of insurance.
3. The Employment Tribunal found that the deduction made was unlawful by reason of the fact that there was no document enabling the employer to make the deduction. The Employment Tribunal's decision was entered in the register on 23 August 2001, Mr Hon Kin Ho appealed by Notice of Appeal dated 18 September. The grounds of his appeal were that the Employment Tribunal ignored the fact that the employer had paid the employee £27 as a final settlement of any monies owed to Mr Bond.
4. The Employment Appeal Tribunal appear to have indicated that extended reasons were required for the appeal to proceed and on 12 October 2001 Mr Hon Kin Ho wrote to the Employment Tribunal requesting written reasons. That request was refused by letter dated 19 October 2001 because it was made out of time. In accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001, Rule 12(4)(c), a request for extended reasons must be made in writing within 21 days of receipt of the reason of the decision. The decision in this case was entered in the register and sent to the parties on 23 August and the request for extended reasons was made on 12 October 2001. It is therefore apparent that the request was plainly out of time.
5. We have in mind that the Employment Appeal Tribunal has itself a discretion under rule 39 of its rules to waive any non-compliance with its rules. Lodging an appeal without extended reasons was an infringement of rule 3(1)(c) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal rules. We do not exercise our discretion to waive the breach of the rule. The basis of this appeal would mean that it would be bound to fail in any event. There is a restriction on contracting out of rights under the Employment Rights Act 1996. That restriction is imposed by section 203. The restriction is subject to certain exceptions which do not apply in this case.
6. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.