 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Payne v Penwood Country Chicken [1992] UKEAT 35_92_2010 (20 October 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/35_92_2010.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 35_92_2010 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR J HOUGHAM
MR K GRAHAM CBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY
OR ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
For the Respondents NO APPEARANCE BY
OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from an Order of the learned Registrar refusing an extension of time for Notice of Appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Norwich on the 23rd May 1991.
The decision reached by the Tribunal was that the Applicant, Mr Payne, did not have sufficient length of service in the employment of Penwood Country Chicken, his employers, to found his claim that he had been unfairly dismissed.
His Originating Application was dated 27th February 1991. He therein stated that he had been employed from the 10th October 1989 to the 3rd January 1991. These dates were agreed in the Notice of Appearance. It is quite evident from those dates that the two year qualification period was not satisfied.
At the hearing the Applicant himself gave evidence on oath. The Respondents did not appear but put in their Notice of Appearance as their defence. It is quite clear from a very short judgment that the relevant dates of employment were those to which I have mentioned and there is no jurisdiction in the Tribunal to hear this case.
The Reasons given, although short, were Full Reasons. No doubt with those Reasons were sent the notes which indicate that an appeal must be lodged here within 42 days. The Notice of Appeal is 221 days out of time. There is no reason why the appeal should not have been lodged earlier, but in any event there is no point of law, no error of law in the decision. The appeal would be absolutely hopeless and this appeal against the Registrar's decision is dismissed.