Immigration Advisory Services v Oommen: EAT 19 Mar 1997

The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being allowed to proceed with the claim which the tribunal had judged to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out after the tribunal had been wrongly told that the deposits had not been paid. The strike out was revoked on a review. The defendant appealed.
Held: Rule 7(7) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules is to be interpreted in accordance with s.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and that the period of 21 days begins with the date of deemed service in the ordinary course of post unless the contrary is proved. The deposit had in fact been paid in time, and the claimant’s cross appeal succeeded.
Keene J
[1997] UKEAT 234 – 97 – 1903, [1997] ICR 683
Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993, Interpretation Act 1978 7
England and Wales
CitedRegina v County of London Quarter Session Appeals Committee ex parte Rossi CA 1956
A bastardy summons had been served on the defendant but he had not been properly served with a written notice indicating the date of an adjourned hearing. He sought an order for certiorari to quash the decision of the court.
Held: Where there . .
CitedRegina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Yeboah CA 1987
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C spoke of section 7 of the 1978 Act: ‘If actual receipt is necessary to enable the addressee to take some necessary step, then the word ‘sent’ in the principal Act will be construed to mean ‘received” . .
CitedMoody v Godstone Rural District Council 1966
The actual date of service of an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 was not material because the notice only took effect on the date stated in it, namely 1st July with 28 days from then for compliance. The date of . .
AppliedDerrybaa Ltd v Castro Blanco EAT 1986
The rules required a notice to be sent not less than 14 days before a date fixed for a hearing.
Held: The word ‘send’ in Rule 5 refers to the date when the notice is received or deemed to have been received under the Interpretation Act. In so . .

Cited by:
Wrongly decidedGdynia American Shipping Lines (London) Ltd v Chelminski CA 8-Jul-2004
The employers had sought to appeal from a decision of the employment tribunal. The EAT had refused it as out of time.
Held: The rules required the appellant to file within 42 days of receiving the decision, the notice of appeal together with a . .
CitedSodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
DisapprovedMock v Inland Revenue EAT 1-Mar-1999
In the context of the time for appealing to the EAT under Rule 3(3) EAT Rules 1993, as amended, ‘sent’ referred to the date appearing on the ET ‘decision’.
Morison P said: ‘Industrial Tribunal chairmen are required to produce reasons. When . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 January 2021; Ref: scu.207314