Appeal No. PA/0203/03 ILB

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 23 September 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J MCMULLEN QC
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

A & M CONSTRUCTION LTD	APPELLANT

(1) MR W YATES	RESPONDENTS
(2) MR R JANKOVSKI

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

APPEAL FROM REGISTRAR’S ORDER

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No Appearance or Representation By or on Behalf of the Appellant	
For the Respondents	MS JILL BROWN
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Rowley Ashworth Solicitors
247 The Broadway
Wimbledon
London SW19 1SE	

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

1	This is an appeal from the Registrar’s Decision, pursuant to Rule 21.  The Appellant has produced a Skeleton Argument and has indicated that it will not attend.  The Respondents have produced a Skeleton Argument and appear by Ms Jill Brown of Counsel.

2	The case arises out of a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 20 November 2002.  The Applicants in that case were awarded sums of £984 and £968 by way of compensation for unlawful deductions made by the Respondent, pursuant to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

3	The Appellant was dissatisfied with that judgment and appealed to the EAT.  The time limit for making an appeal is 42 days.  The appeal was lodged five days out of time.  An application was made for an extension of the time which was refused by the Registrar.

4	The relevant principles regulating such appeals are set out as she noted by Mummery J in Abdelghafar v United Arab Emirates [1995] ICR 65, approved by the Court of Appeal in Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co. Ltd [2000] IRLR 111.  The requirement is for a full explanation to be given; excuses for delays such as ignorance of the time limit, oversight of the passing of the time by a solicitor under pressure of work are not good reasons.

5	The merits of the appeal may be relevant but are usually of little weight.  In this case the Appellant has given less than a full explanation of why the Notice of Appeal was not prepared.  As I understand it, its business was shut down for 17 days over Christmas but that does not explain why in the remaining period of the 25 days action was not taken.  The sole explanation is that the Appellant was busy dealing with other claims against it made by other workers that they too have been underpaid contrary to section 13.  In my judgment this is not an adequate explanation, nor is oversight, as the Appellant puts it, of the passage of time.

6	There are no exceptional reasons, as required by those two authorities, and I see no reason to intervene to change the discretion which the Registrar has exercised.  Having conducted an appeal against her judgment, I uphold her decision and the appeal is dismissed.