Smith v Solartron Ltd & Anor [1995] UKEAT 973_94_0607

EAT

Smith v Solartron Ltd & Anor

[1995] UKEAT 973_94_0607 · 1995-07-06

MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT) : This is an appeal by Mr R T Smith against the Registrar's Order on 6th October 1994. She dealt with an application by letter from Mr Smith for an extension of time for an appeal. The Registrar refused the extension. On 27th October 1994 the Employment Appeal Tribunal received a letter from Mr Smith saying that he wished to appeal. He said that he had sent in the appeal letter in time, but he had sent it to the wrong address. For that reason he asked for an extension of time.

The explanation appears in a little more detail in an earlier letter received by the Tribunal on 21st September 1994. Mr Smith wrote:

"I sent my appeal Tribunal documents to the wrong address and they have been returned to me by the Post Office; which makes my appeal late and I wish to apply for an extension of time as I made a mistake about the address to send the appeal documents; and did send them to 4 St James Sq London. I enclose the documents of appeal."

The decision which Mr Smith wishes to appeal against is an order made by the Industrial Tribunal sent out to the parties on 19th August 1993, over a year before the Notice of Appeal against that decision was received in the Appeal Tribunal on 21st September 1994.

The Order of the Industrial Tribunal was to strike out Mr Smith's claim for unfair dismissal on the grounds that it was very seriously out of time. So far as the Chairman of the Tribunal could gather, the events of which Mr Smith was complaining had taken place in 1973 or 1974. The Chairman said:

"... It is far from certain whether indeed the employers still exist. We are talking about events many years ago and I have to say it would be quite impossible for a Tribunal to deal with it after such a period. In my view, this application is frivolous in the sense that it has no prospect of success. Indeed as must be apparent, it may not be possible to serve the respondent and certainly after approaching 20 years, it really is more than a little out of time."

In his Notice of Appeal, Mr Smith said that he wished to appeal that decision. He can only appeal if his Notice of Appeal is within time or if the time is extended. His Notice of Appeal is clearly out of time by more than nine months. This Tribunal takes a strict view of time limits and will only grant an extension of time for appealing if there is a good excuse, not just an explanation for the delay which has occurred.

Mr Smith has two explanations. The first as stated in the letter quoted, is that he sent the documents to the wrong address. The second is that he did not realise that there was a time limit for appealing. Mr Smith seems to be doing his own case. Although he referred to a solicitor, he made it clear to me that he has not seen that solicitor for some time. When people are doing their own cases, we take a more lenient view of failure to comply with the time limits. But in this case, there really is no excuse.

The duty of the appellant is to make sure that, when an appeal is served, it is served at the right address. The correct address of the Employment Appeal Tribunal can be found out. It is the duty of the person appealing to check up and find out what are the time limits. It is not a good excuse simply to be unaware that there are any time limits. In my judgment, there is not an excuse for Mr Smith's appeal being so seriously out of time. The Registrar was right to refuse an extension. I therefore dismiss the appeal.