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 reduced to writing, it is the responsibility of the clerk to transmit those reasons to the secretary who enters them in the register and sends a copy to the parties. A copy of the entry is attached to the decision. It follows that at the end of the decision there is inserted a date which specifies when the document was entered into the register. That provides a fixed date and explains why Rule 3(2) refers to the date on which extended written reasons were sent to the Appellant . . The context of the Rules tends inevitably to the view that ‘was sent’ means when it was sent i.e. the date from which time starts to run. This was the clear intention of Parliament. There is no room for the application of Section 7 if it would otherwise have applied. The Rule is defining a specific date at which an act was done.’
Judges:
Morison P
Citations:
[1999] UKEAT 997 – 98 – 0103, [1999] IRLR 785
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 3(3), Interpretation Act 1978 7, Industrial Tribunal (Constitution etc.) Regulations 1993
Citing:
Disapproved – 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 . .
Disapproved – Derrybaa 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:
Cited – Sodexho 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. . .
See Also – Smock (T/A Coniston Coach Hire) v Wilson EAT 1-Dec-1998
. .
Cited – Scotford v Smithkline Beecham EAT 25-Oct-2001
. .
Cited – Kanapathiar v London Borough of Harrow EAT 25-Feb-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
Cited – Sian v Abbey National Plc EAT 25-Jun-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Time for appealing . .
Cited – Khan v Royal Mail Group Plc EAT 30-Sep-2004
Practice and Procedure – There is no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal against refusal to exercise discretion to extend time for an appeal under Rule 21 (1) and 37 (1) when it is common ground that UAE and Aziz principles apply and no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204993