[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Philford Design Engineers Ltd v Astill [1998] UKEAT 593_98_0112 (1 December 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/593_98_0112.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 593_98_112, [1998] UKEAT 593_98_0112

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR D PHILLIPS (Representative)
For the Respondent	MR A FREER (Representative) Legal Officer GMB National Legal Department 22-24 Worple Road London SW19 4DD


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from the Registrar's order of 7th July 1998 which refused to extend time for the lodging of a Notice of Appeal against the substantive decision of an Industrial Tribunal. By that decision, the tribunal ordered the respondent employers to make a payment to the applicant employee. The Notice of Appeal was received here nine days out of time. Accordingly, Mr Phillips, on behalf of Philford Design Engineers Ltd, the employers, applied to the Registrar for an extension of time, which she refused.

The principles governing matters of this kind are set out in a well known decision called United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar.

The first question that we will ask ourselves in considering this issue is: has the Court been provided with a full and honest explanation for the delay? I have no hesitation in concluding that Mr Phillips has given me a full and honest explanation for the delay. Namely, that he had decided to apply for a review and did not consider that it was appropriate that until the review decision had been given by the Industrial Tribunal he should make an appeal to this Court. I have to say that that is an understandable misconception, but misconception it is, as is made plain from the leaflet which is sent out and which accompanies Industrial Tribunal decisions. Mr Phillips, as I would have expected, readily recognised that he had received this leaflet and that if he had read it carefully he would have realised that the belief that he had that he should pursue the review hearing before putting in an appeal was contrary to specific statements in the leaflet.

I turn to the second question as to whether that explanation provides a good and sufficient excuse for the delay and I have to say in accordance with the principles laid down in the case to which I have referred, I do not consider that that excuse does excuse the delay or provide any reasonable explanation as to why time should be extended.

I also take into account, as I must, in a general sense, the merits of the appeal. I have to say that in this case Mr Phillips had provided us with a better case than he was able to do for not filing the Notice of Appeal, I would have been only too happy to have extended time, because it seems to me that on the substantive decision itself he has a very strong argument for saying that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in the conclusion that they arrived at in making an award of some £120 instead of the figure which he precisely had given to the Industrial Tribunal on that occasion but which was not perhaps backed up with quite the material that was required; or, alternatively, the tribunal misunderstood what they were being told. The difference between the parties is less than £60 but it is clear from discussions that have taken place on this appeal that there are matters or maybe matters of principle underlying this dispute.

Accordingly, and not without some reluctance, I am not prepared to allow the appeal and I affirm the Registrar's order. The appeal will therefore be dismissed.