[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Chowdhury v Sunrise Radio Ltd [1999] UKEAT 792_98_0607 (6 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/792_98_0607.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 792_98_0607, [1999] UKEAT 792_98_607

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR ALLEN (REPRESENTATIVE)
For the Respondent	MR D H PRESTON (OF COUNSEL) (Instructed by) Sunrise Radio Sunrise House Sunrise Road Southall Middlesex UB2 4AU


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal against the Registrar's refusal to extend time. Mrs Chowdhury was represented by Mr Allen and he put forward, as her explanation for the delay in lodging a Notice of Appeal, various reasons.

1. The brief facts are as follows. The Employment Tribunal rejected her complaint on 31^st March 1998. The decision was promulgated on 21^st April 1998 and gives, in extended reason form, the reasons why the Employment Tribunal rejected her complaint of unfair dismissal brought by her against Sunrise Radio Ltd. 2 days out of time on 26^th June 1998, the Employment Appeal Tribunal received a Notice of Appeal, which was not properly completed, in that in para 6 it indicated that the grounds on which the Appeal was brought would be following – the words "to follow" written on it. So it follows that there was a Notice of Appeal received here 2 days out of time with no grounds attached. The revised Notice of Appeal with grounds was received on 18^th August 1998 which was now 56 days out of time and the application for an extension of time was made on 7^th September 1998. The Registrar's Order against which this is an Appeal, is dated 7^th October 1998.
2. The reasons advanced by Mr Allen were that Mrs Chowdhury had been suffering from great stress during the relevant period. He said that she had been in receipt of chemotherapy treatment which was debilitating to her, as I willingly accept, but on further enquiry it became plain that that treatment had been occurring the previous year. He suggested that it was as a result of a combination of factors relating to her health and to her stress that she was not capable of complying with the time limit. She had been represented at the Employment Tribunal by an individual in whom she had lost confidence, but within the 42 day period had gone to the Citizen's Advice Bureau, who advised her to lodge a Notice of Appeal within the 42 day period and stressed the importance of her complying with the time limit. She decided not to go to solicitors until after the Appeal had been lodged.
3. I was invited by Mr Allen to take into consideration what he regards as an important factor, namely the existence of fresh evidence. The essential reason why she was dismissed was because the Employers suspected she had been misusing their telephone for making personal or private calls. To some extent, that depended on whether a particular phone number which had appeared in her log was that of a client or was rather, that of herself or a relative. Certain evidence was given to the Employment Tribunal by the Company about the fact that they had spoken to a representative of British Telecom, who had told them various things. The representative from British Telecom was a witness subpoenaed by the Applicant and he said that he had no recollection of a telephone conversation with the Employers and that it was British Telecom policy not to disclose information of the type contained in the attendance note.
4. Subsequently, British Telecom have written in January 1999, letters which suggest that the Employer's evidence about the telephone numbers and the conversation with the representative from British Telecom is suspect. Accordingly, says Mr Allen, even though the Appeal is out of time, this was important new material and I should have regard to it in exercising my discretion.
5. I am bound to say that I am not satisfied that I have been provided with a full explanation as to why the Notice of Appeal was not lodged within time. It is significant that she was aware of the time limit. The importance of complying with it had been stressed by the Citizen's Advice Bureau and she had access to the leaflet which is sent with the Tribunal decisions making it plain what the obligations are in relation to an Appeal. Essentially, as she said herself, it was her mistake not to have appealed in time. I do not regard that as a good reason or excuse as to why time should be extended. In the exercise of my discretion, and having regard to all the circumstances, I do not take the view that it would be appropriate to extend time. I do specifically take into account what is said about the British Telecom affair. I note that the delay in obtaining this information from British Telecom was not a factor and could not be regarded as a factor in the delay and on a careful reading of what is said in that documentation, to which I have had regard, it seems to me not self-evidently clear that the Employment Tribunal has been deliberately misled by the Employers. There is room for more than one interpretation of what is said in that material.
6. Accordingly, I am therefore satisfied the Appeal against the Registrar's Order should be dismissed.