![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Morrison v Hillcrest Care Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 1378 (03 November 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1378.html Cite as: [2005] EWCA Civ 1378 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(JUDGE PETER CLARK)
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
NEVILLE MORRISON | Applicant/Appellant | |
-v- | ||
HILLCREST CARE LTD | Respondent/Respondent |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"Where notification has been given under paragraph (7) and within 28 days of the date the notification was sent, as appellant ... expresses dissatisfaction in writing with the reasons given by the judge ... for his opinion, he is entitled to have the matter heard before a judge who shall make a direction as to whether any further action should be taken on the notice of appeal ..."
"Firstly I would like to take the time to apologise for this which was beyond my control as at the time I was trying to apply for legal aid, in so doing I left all my documents with a solicitor for legal advice only to receive them back late. I did also inform him of the time which I had remaining to submit my letter asking for my case to be hearing before the registrar direct. I guess this fell on deaf ears because at a later date he decided he would not be able to represent me at the Appeal Tribunal which has resulted in me being out of time.
Therefore I do still wish to take this matter further, so I would like to make an application for an extension of time, if this will be granted."
"It is the appellant's duty to be aware of the importance of time limits and that these will be relaxed only in rare and exceptional cases where the EAT is satisfied that there is a full honest and acceptable explanation of the reasons for the delay (Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Ltd [2000] IRLR 111).
It is not an acceptable reason for delay that the appellant claims that timeliness 'was beyond my control' as he had left documents with a solicitor in order to be advised about legal aid. The appellant was referred to paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of the Practice Direction, that a consideration of legal aid is not an acceptable reason to delay an appeal. Nor is the provision of legal advice as he had already filed one appeal unaided. Six weeks is a generous amount of time in which to appeal and the appellant was given a further four weeks by the rules but appears to have taken no steps to deal with this matter.
The leading case of United Arab Emirates and (1) Mr Abdelghafar (2) Dr AK Abbas (1995) ICR 65 states 'there is no excuse, even in the case of an unrepresented party, for the ignorance of time limits' and 'the interests of the parties and the public in certainty and finality of legal proceedings, make the court more strict about time limits on appeals'.
Therefore no exceptional reason has been shown why an application could not have been presented within the time limit laid down in paragraph 3(10) of the ... rules."
"10. I approach the case on its own merits. It seemed to me that the appellant was aware of the 28 day time limit. I take that from the following factors: first, he was referred to rule 3(8) and rule 3(10) in the earlier correspondence from the Registrar, setting out His Honour Judge Richardson's opinion, that is the letter of 6th January. Secondly, I am satisfied that a copy of the Practice Direction was sent when the appeal was first registered on 14 December 2004. But most significantly I interpret his application for an extension of time, contained in his letter dated 7th March, as an acceptance that he was aware of the 28 day time limit when he went to a solicitor for legal advice.
11. In these circumstances the only basis on which he seeks an extension of time is that his solicitor delayed in providing advice and retained the papers. I do not regard that as any proper excuse for missing the time limit. Even if one adopts the lower test advanced by Miss Morris [his counsel] I am not persuaded that the Registrar was wrong in refusing an extension of time. ... It seems to me that if the appellants wish to take advantage of the prospect of an oral hearing then it is incumbent on them to meet the deadline laid down in the Rules, as well as the Practice Direction, unless there are exceptional circumstances which merit an extension of time."
The judge said that there were no such exceptional circumstances.
"I should be accorded the same opportunity to put my case as the respondent. It is pertinent that the respondents have been represented while I am not. My right to appeal should not be denied on procedural grounds and this is wrong pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6."
ORDER: Application refused.