Matheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd: EAT 16 Dec 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be an area office, and not a regional office and therefore the application was not accepted within the Regulations. The appellant argued that the Rules were unclear since Scotland had only one Region. He also argued that the interpretation infringed his Article 6 rights.
Held: The appeal failed. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that correctly interpreted the legislation against the background of the admitted facts. And ‘The place where the application is to be made is not the manner in which it is to be made but is a mandatory, in our opinion, direction rather then merely a directory provision.
On this simple basis we do not consider that the legislation is incompatible as we construe it with the Convention. If the issue of disproportionality does arise in this context we consider that the avoidance of administrative chaos that would result from applicants being able to pick which office of the Tribunal system in Scotland they were going to make their application is a legitimate aim which is not disproportionate to the interpretation that we have put upon the provision.’


The Honourable Lord Johnston


EATS/0048/03, [2003] UKEAT 0048 – 03 – 1612


Bailii, EAT


Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001, European Convention on Human Rights 6


CitedPerez De Rada Cavanilles v Spain ECHR 28-Oct-1998
ECHR Inadmissibility, for being out of time, of reposicion application against court decision whereby a settlement agreement which the applicant had sought to enforce had been declared void
In a dispute . .
CitedStubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996
There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
CitedPetch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Jun-1994
The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory . .
CitedJohn E Melville v Brown Brothers and Co Ltd EAT 8-Jun-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192121