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 £5, 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 >> Banai v Southampton & South West Hampshire Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 97_90_2009 (20 September 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/97_90_2009.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 97_90_2009 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondents NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by Dr Banai from a Decision of the learned Registrar, dated 30th July 1990 when she in the exercise of her discretion refused leave to extend time for appeal.
The Notice of Appeal was some 22 months out of time. The time limit under the Rules is 42 days, and it is right to say that Dr Banai is very familiar with the Rules and procedures.
The Decision from which Dr Banai wishes to appeal was promulgated on the 18th May 1988 by an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Southampton under the Chairmanship of Mr Stainsby. The claim was against Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority, alleging discrimination and victimisation on the ground of race.
In that Decision the Tribunal deal with the matter with great care. They set out the whole history and they find against Dr Banai.
The reason why Dr Banai did not file a Notice of Appeal until the 13th March 1990 was as he tells me today, that there was a further set of proceedings against the same Respondents, and they were the subject of Appeal to this Court under a reference EAT/250/89. That appeal was heard as a Preliminary Hearing, he tells me, on the 26th March 1989 and was dismissed. He has not yet appealed to the Court of Appeal in that matter.
He submits to me that evidence in the present matter was relevant in EAT 250/89, and perhaps also vice-versa, and therefore just a few days before the Hearing of that case on the 26th March he filed his Notice of Appeal, in this case on the 13th March. The learned Registrar did not find any reason why there had been a failure to file a Notice of Appeal for all those months. Dr Banai is very familiar with all our procedures, and she took the decision that there should be no extension.
I can find no error in her Decision; indeed it seems to me that is the correct decision and this Appeal is dismissed.
