At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.
Held: The Appeal Tribunal should pay regard also decisions on the procedure and practice of the Supreme Court on similar points. ‘The Appeal Tribunal and the law which it applies are not sealed in separate compartments impervious to the influence of general principles laid down from time-to-time by other courts in relevant areas of substantive law and procedure.’ Here, there was a real possibility of the decision being in error, and the Court had a duty to determine that issue correctly in any event. Leave was given.
The court gave guidance on the EAT accepting applications for leave to appeal out of time. There were three questions for the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the parties and their representatives: (1) What is the explanation for the default? (2) Does it provide a good excuse for the default? (3) Are there circumstances which justify the Tribunal taking the exceptional step of granting an extension of time? ‘The merits of the appeal may be relevant, but are usually of little weight. It is not appropriate on an application for leave to extend time for the appeal tribunal to be asked to investigate in detail the strength of the appeal. Otherwise there is a danger that an application for leave will be turned into a mini-hearing of the substantive appeal.’ Many explanations for delay do not in fact operate as excuses for delay. An appeal from the Registrar under rule 21(1) of the 1993 Rules is a re-hearing of the Registrar’s decision.
Judges:
Mummery P
Citations:
[1994] UKEAT 1025 – 93 – 2907, [1995] IRLR 243, [1995] ICR 65
Links:
Statutes:
State Immunity Act 1978 1 4, Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 37(1)
Citing:
Cited – Marshall v Harland and Wolff Ltd NIRC 1972
The doctrine of frustration can apply to contracts of employment. The Court looked at the situations in which it should extend time for an appeal to be filed: ‘Was the employee’s incapacity, looked at before the purported dismissal, of such a . .
Cited – Martin v British Railways Board EAT 1989
Use of discretion to allow appeals out of time. . .
Cited – Duke v Prospect Training Services Ltd EAT 1988
Use of tribunal’s discretion to extend time for appeal. . .
Cited – Regalbourne Ltd v East Lindsey District Council CA 16-Mar-1993
When applying to for an extension of time in which to appeal against an order made by a public policy statutory tribunal’s decision, it was incorrect to seek to apply in parallel, principles which applied to a striking out. . .
Cited – Costellow v Somerset County Council CA 1993
The court asked whether it was appropriate to allow an extension of time to file an appeal: ‘Save in special cases or exceptional circumstances it can rarely be appropriate on an overall assessment of what justice requires to deny the plaintiff an . .
Cited – Sengupta v Republic of India 1983
India did not appear at court to take a point on jurisdiction under the 1978 Act. The Court asked for the appointment of an amicus to assist it.
Held: The court has a duty under statute to give the effect to the immunity conferred, even though . .
Cited by:
Cited – Moroak T/A Blake Envelopes v Cromie EAT 19-Apr-2005
moroak_cromieEAT2005
EAT Response lodged at the Employment Tribunal 44 minutes late and the Employment Tribunal ordered that the Respondent could take no part in the proceedings and refused to review that order on the basis it had no . .
Cited – N Barrosso, M Mayou, A Gray, D Young v C Fahy EAT 31-Jan-2007
EAT Sex Discrimination – Vicarious liability. . .
Cited – Asda Stores Ltd v Thompson, Pullan, and Caller EAT 16-Jun-2003
The appellants had been dismissed after investigations satisfied the employer that the employees had been using illegal drugs. Cross appeals were made in the following misconduct unfair dismissal claim. The employees complained of the use of . .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210083