[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mehr v. Palmstock Hotels Ltd [2000] UKEAT 0626_00_0111 (1 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/0626_00_0111.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 626__111, [2000] UKEAT 0626_00_0111

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES:

1. This is an appeal from an Order of the Registrar which is dated 28 July. That Order was in the following terms:

"UPON THE application of the Appellant by letter dated the 25^th day of May 2000 for an extension of time in which to enter a Notice of Appeal

AND UPON consideration of the aforesaid letter and a letter from the Respondents dated the 26^th day of June 2000 and further letters from the Appellant dated the 9^th day of June 2000 and the 23^rd day of June 2000

AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of paragraph 3(1) of the Practice Direction (Employment Appeal Tribunal Procedure) where it is clearly the responsibility of the Appellant to ensure that an appeal is submitted to the Tribunal within 42 days.

AND UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION of the Judgment given in UNITED ARAB EMIRATES AND (1) MR ABDELGHAFAR (2) DR A K ABBAS with special attention paid to 71C 'there is no excuse, even in the case of an unrepresented party, for the ignorance of time limits'.

IT IS CONSIDERED that there has been shown no exceptional reason why an appeal could not have been presented within the time limit laid down in paragraph 3(2) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993

AND IT IS ORDERED that the application for an extension of time in which to present the Notice of Appeal is refused."

2. The parties to the appeal are a Mr Mehr, the Applicant before the Employment Tribunal and the Appellant before us and Palmstock Hotels Ltd t/a Langford Hotels. Neither party has appeared today. Efforts have been made to contact Mr Mehr but they have been unsuccessful.
3. The appeal relates to a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Brighton, the Extended Reasons for which were sent to the parties on 3 February. That decision was as follows:

"1 The Originating Applications are amended to show as respondents Palmstock Hotels Ltd.

2 The Originating Application in case number 3102759/99 is dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant.

3 The applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal case number 3103229/99 succeeds and the respondents are ordered to pay compensation in respect thereof in the sum of £1,467.50.

4 The recoupment provisions apply."

4. Two Notices of Appeal were received by this Tribunal on 17 May, one relates to Originating Application No. 3102759/99 which, as the Order of the Employment Tribunal shows, was dismissed on withdrawal; the other appeal relates to case No. 3103229/99 and that is the case in which the Appellant's claim for unfair dismissal succeeded and he was awarded compensation of £1,467.50.
5. On 19 May this Tribunal wrote to the Appellant in the following terms:

"I refer to your Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at Southampton and sent to the parties on the 3 February 2000."

I pause to comment, I think that is a mistake and the Tribunal sat at Brighton.

"It was received here on the 17 May 2000 and is therefore 104 days out of time.

Accordingly paragraph 3 of the enclosed Practice Direction is being applied. If therefore you wish to pursue the matter you must let me have your application to extend time within which to lodge your Notice of Appeal together with your reasons for the lateness.

Please let me have your application and reasons within the next 14 days."

6. Correspondence followed between the Appellant and this Tribunal in which the Appellant set out his reasons for being late and other points as to his appeal and his case against the Respondent company. Within that correspondence there is also a letter from Solicitors who, as I understand it, act for companies that were associated with, or had a connection with, the Respondent company which informed this Tribunal that the Respondent company is in liquidation.
7. On 24 August 2000 the Appellant sent this Tribunal a notification of his intention to be present today to which he attached a number of documents, including the Extended Reasons for the decision of the Employment Tribunal, his Notice of Appeal, undated documents headed "Affidavit" and "Appeal for sickness", a document headed "Night porter 4-week rota for January/February", a medical certificate dated 29 June 1999, a letter from a Dr Bodkin dated 28 July 1999 and other correspondence and notes dated 1999. The majority of that correspondence predated the date of the Appellant's dismissal which was identified in the Extended Reasons as taking place on 13 August 1999 (see paragraph 12(1) of the Extended Reasons).
8. The focus of this information sent on 24 August is on the Appellant's substantive claim rather than the reasons why his appeal was late. It is apparent from this documentation that the Appellant feels strongly about the way he was, and has been, treated by the Respondent company and his feelings are also directed towards individuals who, I understand, were directors and shareholders of that company and perhaps to companies connected with the Respondent company.
9. A precis or synopsis of the Appellant's position is contained in his two letters to this Tribunal dated 25 May 2000 and 11 August 2000. The later letter is his Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Registrar refusing to extend time. These letters are respectively in the following terms:

[25/5/2000]

"I duly apologise for the delay of the appeal letters that I have already sent you, please accept my apologies.

The reason for the lateness of the appeal letter I have sent you is due to my efforts and energies being spent in trying to obtain the award sum of £1,010.oo that was awarded to me in the original court case back in January and also I was unaware of the limit of time in which I needed to lodge my appeal in.

As I have stated in my last letter I feel the amount that I was awarded and have not yet received is wholly inadequate in view of the problems I have encountered both in obtaining the award and the effect it has had on my life in general. I am a working class person who wishes to be in employment but I have found it very hard to obtain suitable employment since due to my experiences in working under the management of David Mitchell and Andrew Emmanuel of the Palmstock Hotels Organisation and there bad treatment of me after the stress I was suffering.

I am asking for a fair hearing and a full review of all the circumstances that surround this case and a satisfactory conclusion to this whole episode that has affected my life considerably.

I thank you for your efforts on my behalf up to now."

[11/8//00]

"I wish to confirm by letter my intention to appeal to the outcome of the hearing on Jan 11^th 2000, to which I was awarded £1,050, of which I have never received up until now. I was not allowed to read out my papers in front of the Chairman that I had prepared to the full on the date in question. I have had to take out numerous summonses to obtain the award but I have failed each time. I suffered severe stress whilst being employed as a night porter at the Langfords Hotel, third Avenue, Hove, Sussex. The guests admitted to the hotel (drunken yobs) were very difficult to control. I almost had a nervous breakdown and was forced to seek medical advice. I obtained a doctor's certificate confirming a diagnosis of severe stress – but was not allowed to show this to the Chairman at my original hearing. He was in fact rather rude, when I asked him could I put my case to him. I have contacted my MP about this case and this is till in the balance. As stated I have never received my award from the hotel. I always stated that the people employed me were namely, Andrew Emmanuel (Director), David Mitchell (Manager) and Nicholas Van Hoogstraten (Owner). I never stated to the Tribunal at any time that Palmstock Hotels alone were my employers. The Solicitors acting for my ex employers say that Palmstock Hotels have gone into liquidation. I have been in touch with the Royal Courts of Justice and they have confirmed that Palmstock Hotels still exist and are trading. I have sent evidence to the County Court in Brighton, but they just push my evidence aside and choose to ignore the facts."

10. As appears from those letters the Appellant says that the delay has been caused, or was caused, by his unsuccessful efforts to recover the compensation awarded to him, albeit that the appeal is essentially against the amount of that compensation and, as I have said, it seems that the Respondent company is in liquidation. Additionally, he asserts that he has suffered and is suffering from stress and asserts a lack of knowledge of the relevant time limit.
11. As the Registrar's Order under appeal sets out, in determining whether to exercise its discretion to extend time for appealing, this Tribunal follows guidance given in the case of United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] IRLR 243. It has recently been held in the Court of Appeal in Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd [2000] IRLR 111, that by taking that approach this Tribunal does not err in law, in Setiya v East Yorkshire Health Authority [1995] IRLR 348, at 349 paragraph 8, Mummery J, the then President of this Tribunal summarised the guidance he had given in Abdelghafar as follows:

"Extensions of time general

The practice and principles relating to applications for leave to appeal out of time are not in dispute. They were recently restated, both as a reminder to, and as a convenient summary for, parties and their advisers: United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar & another [1995] IRLR 243 at paragraphs 26-30. Time limits are strictly enforced and only relaxed in rare and exceptional cases where the tribunal is satisfied that the reason for non-compliance is a good excuse which justifies departure from the time limits prescribed by the Rules. In the exercise of the discretion to extend time the tribunal will examine the explanation for the default, ask whether that explanation provides a good excuse for the default and decide whether the circumstances justify the exceptional step of granting an extension of time."

I add that, as the Abdelghafar case shows, there can be exceptional circumstances which warrant an extension of time, even if no good reason for the delay is given. In that case that exceptional circumstance was the issue of State Immunity.

12. The explanations offered by the Appellant do not, in my judgment, amount to explanations that would warrant an extension of time being granted. In this context I have had particular regard to the points made in the second paragraph of the guidance given in the Abdelghafar case, in particular in that it is pointed out that ignorance of the time limit is not a good or acceptable excuse. The allegation made as to stress is not focused to a period during which the time for appeal ran. The allegation that the Appellant was waiting to see if he could recover his compensation before appealing against its amount is not, in my judgment, an excuse which would warrant an extension of time.
13. I have further considered whether there are any other exceptional circumstances in this case which would warrant an extension of time. In my judgment there are none.
14. Accordingly, as I have said, this appeal is dismissed.