Mr Recorder Langstaff QC
[2001] UKEAT 1371 – 00 – 2510, EAT/1371/00, [2002] ICR 264
Bailii, EATn
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Scotford v Smithkline Beecham EAT 5-Dec-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
Cited – Mock 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 . .
Cited – Migwain Limited (In Liquidation) v Transport and General Workers Union 1979
Section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 applied to the receipt of notice of the proceedings leading to a decision of the Industrial Tribunal. The presumption as to receipt only arose where it was first established that the correspondence in . .
Cited – Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Limited CA 25-May-1999
The notice of appeal was served three days late. The Registrar and Morison J refused to extend time, the judge concluding that the explanation for the delay was honest and full, but not acceptable.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. Sir . .
Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Ladejobi EAT 1-Nov-1998
The tribunal was asked as to the date from which time started to run for the purposes of calculating the 42-day period within which an appeal should have been brought from a decision of an Employment Tribunal, if it was to be brought at all.
Employment
Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.204385