The claimant sought to appeal against refusal to allow him an extension of time for appeal. He miscalculated the date.
Held: Reasons given for failure to apply in time often did not excuse the failure. That applied here. ‘The time limits, it must be asserted are limits and not targets to be aimed at. The interest of justice requires that these appeals should be brought to the Court within the 42 day period. After that period has expired, the successful party in the Industrial Tribunal is entitled to assume that the matter is at an end. The interests of justice require finality and that is a factor which I take into account. Standing back and looking at the whole of the case more generally, I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require me to extend time.’ Leave refused.
Citations:
[1999] UKEAT 1026 – 98 – 0102, [1999] UKEAT 1026 – 98 – 1202
Links:
Citing:
Cited – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Another EAT 10-Jul-1995
The appellant challenged a decision by the tribunal made in its absence that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear against it a claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The tribunal had erred. Though Sengupta had been decided under common law, it . .
Appealed to – Clancy v Cannock Chase Technical College CA 11-Jun-1999
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to appeal to the EAT out of time. He had miscalculated the closing date by ten days.
Held: ‘the existence of a ground of appeal does not in itself justify an extension of time. It has been held repeatedly . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Clancy v Cannock Chase Technical College CA 11-Jun-1999
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to appeal to the EAT out of time. He had miscalculated the closing date by ten days.
Held: ‘the existence of a ground of appeal does not in itself justify an extension of time. It has been held repeatedly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204807