1) MR D SCOTFORD 2) MR M ALEXANDER v SMITHKLINE BEECHAM [2000] UKEAT 1371_00_0512
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 1371_00_0512Case No Appeal No. EAT/1371/00Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
1) MR D SCOTFORD 2) MR M ALEXANDERAPPELLANTSMITHKLINE BEECHAMRESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge D M LevyDate 5 December 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR T LINDEN (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Pattison & Brewer 71 Kingsway London WC2B 6ST JUDGE D M LEVY QC We have a Preliminary Appeal Ex Parte this morning by Mr D Scotford and Mr M Alexander ("the Appellants") resulting from the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting in Bristol which refused to supply extended reasons for dismissing originating applications of the Appellants on 10 July 2000 or to extend time for seeking such reasons. There is some mix up about the names of those who were before it and their representatives but at the heart of the appeal is that the order which was sent out on 10 July did not reach the TGWU, who were shown as the representatives acting for Mr Scotford and Mr Alexander on their application forms (the ITI's).[2]In the Extended Reasons the Chairman states:
"The Decision, with Summary Reasons in accordance with rule 10(4) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 1993, were sent to the parties on 10 July 2000."
[3]The Chairman does not state the address to which the Decision with Summary Reasons were sent and the letter which we have seen by the TGWU dated 24 August and the follow up dated 15 September do not show from where it was sent, even if the decision was sent to the Applicants rather than the TGWU, it does not mean that the Tribunal rules as to sending out decisions were followed.[4]Although there may only be a short delay between the expiry of time and the date by which a request for an extension should have been submitted it seems to us that if this matter is to go forward to a full Tribunal it is necessary for the Appellants to state clearly what letters if any they or their agents received on or about 10 July about the decision which we have now seen a copy and that the Chairman, having seen that evidence, should be invited to expand on the sentence in paragraph 1 of the Reasons dated 20 September 2000.[5]We therefore adjourn this Preliminary Hearing to come before another Tribunal after further investigations have been made so that another Tribunal can see whether there is an arguable Appeal to go forward. We would ask Mr Linden for his clients' evidence to be supplied as soon as possible. We will hear from him how long he needs and will ask for the Chairman's comments thereafter as soon as they can be provided, bearing in mind the Christmas break.