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 >> Mostyn House School v Stovell [1997] UKEAT 854_97_2310 (23 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/854_97_2310.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 854_97_2310 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MISS C HOLROYD
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MR P COWAN (of Counsel) Messrs Berrymans Lace Mawer Solicitors Castle Chambers 43 Castle Street Liverpool L2 9SU |
MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mostyn House School against a decision of the Chairman of an Industrial Tribunal sitting alone in Liverpool on 18th March 1997. There was a preliminary question as to whether the application of Mr Stovell had been lodged in time. The decision of the Chairman was that it had been lodged in time. He also went on to say that if he had been wrong about that or had found otherwise about that, he would in any event have enlarged the applicant's time for presenting his complaint pursuant to the statutory power.
The arguments ably advanced by Mr Cowan in support of the appeal against the finding that the application was lodged in time centre upon the construction of a letter dated 15th July 1996. That followed an oral intimation of dismissal. It is Mr Cowan's submission that the Chairman's finding of ambiguity is insupportable and outside the parameters of what a reasonable tribunal might have found, given what he says is the unambiguous clarity of the letter.
It seems to us that whilst there are difficulties in the case, it would not be appropriate to prevent this appeal from going to a full hearing. Accordingly, we shall permit it do so, in so far as it is an appeal against that decision that the application was lodged in time. We do, however, question whether it is open to the appellants to challenge the alternative finding, if such it was, that there ought to be an extension of time. It seems to us that that was in the event was not part of the decision. We have considered whether we ought at this stage to lock the appellants from advancing arguments in relation to that at a final hearing, we have decided not to lock them out, but we do invite the appellants to reconsider that matter and to raise it with the tribunal at the final hearing.
