[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mealing (t/a Avonleigh Nursing Home v. Rice [2001] UKEAT 401_00_1601 (16 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/401_00_1601.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 401__1601, [2001] UKEAT 401_00_1601

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED
For the Respondent	THE RESPONDENT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT): I have before me an appeal by Mr B K Mealing who trades as Avonleigh Nursing Home. The appeal is in the matter Ms J L Rice v Mr B K Mealing t/a Avonleigh Nursing Home.

Today, and I am now looking at the time - it is 12:50 - no one has appeared to represent Mr Mealing nor has there been any communication from him indicating that he has in any way been delayed and the usher has made a number of attempts to telephone the appropriate number but has failed to get any answer. So the matter has to be dealt with in the absence of Mr Mealing, he being the appellant and whose job it was to make a case.

1. On 13th October 1999 Ms Rice presented an IT1 for unfair dismissal and for pay in lieu of notice. On 31st January 2000 there was a hearing at the Employment Tribunal under the chairmanship of Mr J Bedford. On 21st February 2000 the decision and summary reasons were sent to the parties. The unanimous decision of the tribunal was that Ms Rice had been unfairly dismissed and Mr Mealing was ordered to pay to her £2,499.00.
2. On 29th March 2000 there was what purported to be a Notice of Appeal by Mr Mealing. But it is a requirement of the practice of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that a Notice of Appeal should require as a prerequisite that extended reasons should first have been given by the tribunal before the appeal is launched. On 7th April 2000, as is its relatively standard practice, the Employment Appeal Tribunal indicated to the prospective appellant, Mr Mealing, that there needed to be extended reasons. The letter of 7th April 2000 says:

"I would draw your attention to the matter of William Hill Organisation v A Gravas (EAT/645/88) in which the EAT stated that without extended written reasons an appeal cannot properly continue, and upon appeal to the Court of Appeal the view of the EAT was upheld.

The time for applying for extended written reasons is set out in the Explanatory notes sent with the Employment Tribunal decision. In the event of your request for the extended written reasons being refused, you may make an appeal to the EAT against that refusal. The appeal must be made within 42 days of the date of the refusal letter and be supported by a copy of the refusal letter. The matter will then be set down for a preliminary hearing.

You should enclose a copy of this letter when making your application to the Employment Tribunal."

3. One might have thought that that would excite Mr Mealing into an application to the Employment Tribunal for extended reasons, but nothing, it seems, was done in that behalf, at any rate for the time-being.
4. On 20th June 2000 accordingly the EAT made an order as follows:

"AN UPON the Appellant having been informed by letter dated 7th day of April 2000 that there is no jurisdiction to hear an appeal solely in respect of Summary Reasons

IT IS ORDERED that unless confirmation in writing is received in 7 days from today that an application has been made to the Employment Tribunal for the Extended Reasons for the Decision the Notice of Appeal will be referred to the Registrar for determination"

5. Well, that did excite Mr Mealing into writing to the Employment Tribunal but he did not inform the EAT that he had done so, which is what that part of the order required. Nor has he applied to the Employment Tribunal before the order was made on 20th June 2000.
6. It then came about that on 12th July 2000, having heard nothing further for the time-being, the EAT made an order that said:

"AND UPON the failure of the Appellant to comply with Order of the Registrar dated the 20th day of June 2000

IT IS ORDERED that the Notice of Appeal dated the 29th day of March 2000 do be struck out"

7. On 18th July 2000 Mr Mealing appealed that order saying this:

"As stated in the Order there was no Jurisdiction to hear an appeal solely in respect of Summary Reasons. We were promised at the original tribunal that Full reasons would be sent to us, and later requested by telephone and letter the Full reason for the decision. The appeal was put forward with Summary Reasons as the Full Reasons were promised to arrive shortly.

Due to the time limitations and the non-arrival of these Full Reasons we therefore wish to appeal against the decision based on refusal to supply Full Reasons for the Decision of the Employment Tribunal case 1402585/99."

8. On 24th July 2000, having received the request for extended reasons and having first answered that the relevant Chairman, Mr Bedford, was on holiday, the Employment Tribunal refused to give extended reasons. The decision, sent to the parties on 26th July 2000, says:

"The respondent's request for extended reasons out of time is refused.

SUMMARY REASONS

1. The decision with summary reasons was sent to the parties on 21st February 2000, full reasons having been given orally at the hearing. The respondent did not request extended reasons at the hearing or within the period of 21 days required by Rule 10(4)(c)(ii) …

2. On 21st June 2000 the respondent requested extended reasons by letter received on 22nd June, four months after the decision was promulgated and nearly five months after the hearing."

9. The question of whether there had been any request for extended reasons was explored a little further and on 10th August 2000 the Employment Tribunal wrote a letter to Mr Mealing saying that:

"Mr Bedford [the relevant Chairman] has no specific recall of the conversation quoted in your letter [in which Mr Mealing had asserted and indicated that he had been promised extended reasons]. He [Mr Bedford] reiterates that had he been asked for extended reasons, or indicated that he would supply them, he would not have prepared a decision with summary reasons. There is no requirement in the Rules to do so, and it is duplication of effort."

So the Employment Tribunal was obviously taking the view that although they were not a position formally to deny that a request had been made at the time for extended reasons, it was obviously regarded as extremely improbable that that had been the case.

10. Had Mr Mealing taken the trouble to attend today or to submit an argument in writing, there were plainly points that could have been taken in his favour. But he has not troubled to attend or to explain his absence and, as I have mentioned, attempts have been made to make some contact with him and have come to nothing. The writing paper on which he writes to the Employment Appeal Tribunal gives a number of telephone numbers and a fax number; it is those telephone numbers that have so far been attempted to be contacted without any answer forthcoming.
11. In the circumstances, it is not for me to construct a case for Mr Mealing that he has not bothered to construct for himself. I see no reason to set aside the order of the Registrar made on 12th July 2000, which caused his Notice of Appeal of 29th March 2000 to be struck out. I do not set aside that order in his absence. The appeal is dismissed and therefore the striking out stands.