BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> John Healy & Co v Raoof [1994] UKEAT 260_94_1406 (14 June 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/260_94_1406.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 260_94_1406 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR R JACKSON
MR J C RAMSAY
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR D BURLES
(OF COUNSEL)
John Healy & Co
66 High street
Lewes
E Sussex BN7 1XG
JUDGE LEVY QC: This is an application for leave to appeal by the Appellants, Messrs John Healy & Co, who were the Respondents to an application made by Ms Ambreen Raoof for relief under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 for unfair dismissal. There was a hearing at London South on the 27 January 1994 when the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that it was not reasonably practicable to lodge the application within three months from the date of termination of the employment of the Respondent. That was on a preliminary point, and it is from that preliminary point that the Appellants appeal.
The reason it was not considered reasonably practicable for the application to be lodged within the 3 months was to do with the Respondent Solicitors' lodging of the application and the expiration of the period. In effect, she had, so far as we can see, done nothing to follow up the lodging of the application to ensure that it was in fact delivered or received in time by those to whom it was addressed.
We do not usually encourage authorities to be cited to us on ex parte hearings but we did encourage Mr Burles to cite to us authorities this morning and he has drawn to our attention the decision of the Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunal in Capital Food Retails Ltd v Corrigan [1993] IRLR 430. Having had our attention drawn to that appeal we think that there is a very arguable case in the appeal and it must therefore go forward. We would, however, urge both parties to the dispute to have regard to the decision in that case to see whether a full hearing in the circumstances will in fact be necessary. That, of course, is a matter for them.
