Isaac-Ariwodo v Department Of Environment [1996] UKEAT 1515_95_2407

EAT
Isaac-Ariwodo v Department Of Environment
[1996] UKEAT 1515_95_2407 · 1996-07-24
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This appeal is against the order of the Registrar made on 14 March 1996. The Registrar ruled on an application made by the Appellant, Miss Isaac-Ariwodo, for an extension of time for filing a Notice of Appeal. After consideration of written representations from the Appellant and from the Respondents, the Department of the Environment, the Registrar ordered that the application be refused.A letter was then sent by Solicitors, on behalf of the Appellant, dated 27 March, acknowledging receipt of the order of 14 March and saying that their client wished to appeal against that order. They noted that the appeal was one day out of time, but they said that that was a result of the order being sent to the wrong office. They had only actually received it that day. If necessary, they applied for leave to appeal out of time against the Registrar's order.The position today is that Ms Isaac-Ariwodo has not appeared and is not represented. The position of the Department of the Environment is that they object to the extension of time. The need for the application for an extension arose because the Notice of Appeal was 13 days late.The Industrial Tribunal heard the Applicant's claim for race discrimination and unfair dismissal, at London (South) on 21 March and 9 June 1995. The Applicant argued her case in person. The department was represented by Counsel. The Extended Reasons for the decision, rejecting both the claim of discrimination and unfair dismissal, were sent to the parties on 3 November 1995. The time for appealing began to run from that date and the 42 day period prescribed by Rule 3(2) of The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 expired in the middle of December.The Notice of Appeal was not received in this Tribunal until 28 December. The reasons given in the written submissions for not complying with the time limit is that, Miss Isaac-Ariwodo had been away and had not got back until 18 December, by which time the period for appealing had expired. She signed and dated her Notice of Appeal as 19 December and says that she sent it off.The Department of the Environment, through the Treasury Solicitor, objected to the extension on the basis set out in the letter of 27 February 1996. They said this:
"The Applicant indicates that she was `away' when the Tribunal decision was promulgated. She does not go into any detail concerning this but even if she were absent, she states that she received the decision in the `second week in December'. However, the Notice of Appeal is dated 28 December, and it seems that the Applicant did not act with expedition even allowing for her original absence."
The Solicitors for the Applicant urged various considerations on the Registrar in the letter of 13 March. They said the decision was sent to her on 3 November, 42 days would expire on 16 December. At that time they were instructed that their client was not living at her address. The letter came to her attention on 15 December. She immediately forwarded a copy of the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal indicating her wish to appeal. It was after that date that she received the Notice of Appeal form with the accompanying notes from the Tribunal. She immediately completed it and returned it with her letter dated 19 December requesting leave to appeal out of time.It would seem that, because of the intervening Christmas period, her letter was not attended to before 28 December 1995. They submit that, in these circumstances, that although she is out of time, she acted with due diligence and submitted her application as soon as practicable.It was submitted that there would be no prejudice to the Department of the Environment by reason of the short period of delay. They therefore asked the Registrar to grant the appeal out of time. I have considered those submissions on the basis of which the Registrar refused the extension. In my judgment, she made the correct decision.The position is that the time limit of 42 days, from the date on which the Extended Reasons were sent out, is a strict time limit. The parties are notified of the time limit when they are sent the Extended Reasons. This Tribunal will only exercise its discretion to extend the time if a full explanation is given for failure to comply with the time limits and the Tribunal forms the view that there is a good excuse for not complying with them. The Tribunal may then, in all the circumstances, decide that an extension should be granted.In this case I am not satisfied that the explanation which has been given is a full one. It is lacking in details, as the Treasury Solicitor has observed in his letter and, in any case, it does not amount to a good excuse.If a party has fought and lost a case in the Industrial Tribunal, it is incumbent on that party to make sure that, if they are not available or able to take decisions themselves, the necessary steps for an appeal (if they wish to appeal) can be taken by somebody else for them. Being away is not a good excuse for failing to comply with the time limits.Even after Miss Isaac-Ariwodo had got back from wherever she had been, there was an unjustifiable length of time between her making a decision on the matter and this Tribunal receiving the Notice of Appeal. If a Notice of Appeal is late it is incumbent upon a party to deal with the matter as soon as possible. If there is some doubt about the post, as there often is in the Christmas period, other steps must be taken to ensure that this Tribunal receives the Notice of Appeal, either by delivery in person or by fax.In this case, it appears from the dates that we are given, that, by the time Ms Isaac-Ariwodo got around to taking the necessary steps for an appeal, the time had already expired.In my view, the Registrar came to the right decision. There should not be an extension of time and this appeal is therefore dismissed.