Duke v Prospect Training Services Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Year | 1988 |
| Date | 1988 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Industrial Relations - Employment Appeal Tribunal - Appeal to - Time in which to appeal - Appeal tribunal informed of intention to appeal - Notice of appeal out of time - Whether time in which to appeal to be extended -
On 12 February 1987, an industrial tribunal dismissed the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal. In March 1987, within the 42 day time limit for filing a notice of appeal prescribed by rule 3(1) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1980, the employee's solicitor wrote to the appeal tribunal giving notice of the employee's intention of appealing and requesting the appropriate form. Due to pressure of work the solicitor did not file the appeal until 27 March, one day out of time. The registrar of the appeal tribunal allowed the employee's application for an extension of time for appealing.
On the employers' appeal against the registrar's order: —
Held, allowing the appeal, that the fact that the employee's solicitor had given notice to the Employment Appeal Tribunal of the employee's intention to appeal within the 42 day period so that the office had knowledge of the fact was not a special circumstance justifying an extension of the time limit; and that, accordingly, the registrar's order could not be upheld (post, pp. 525F–526B).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
De Mars v. Gurr Johns & Angier Bird Ltd. [
Marshall v. Harland & Wolff Ltd. [
Marshall v. Harland & Wolff Ltd. (Practice Note) [
Middleton v. Vaux & Associated Breweries Ltd. (
Practice Direction (E.A.T.: Procedure) [
No additional cases were cited in argument.
Interlocutory Appeal from the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
On 11 June 1987 the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal made an order that an application by the employee, Heather Duke, for an extension of time for entering a notice of appeal from a decision of an industrial tribunal dismissing her complaint of unfair dismissal, be extended until 27 March 1987. The employers, Prospect Training Services Ltd., appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the registrar had erred in extending time where no exceptional circumstances existed.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Ralph Wynne-Griffiths for the employers.
Anthony Snelson for the employee.
Popplewell J. delivered the following judgment of the appeal tribunal. This is an appeal against the order of the registrar of this appeal tribunal dated 11 June 1987, allowing the employee's application for an extension of time for appealing. The employee has brought a claim against the employers, Prospect Training Services Ltd., on the ground of unfair dismissal and the industrial tribunal sitting at Hull on 30 January 1987 decided that they did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
The employee conducted that hearing on her own behalf. The decision was sent to the parties on 12 February 1987. Rule 3(1) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1980 requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 42 days; that meant that it needed to be filed before the end of 26 March 1987. In fact, the solicitors acting for her did not file it in time and it did not reach the appeal tribunal until 27 March, a day out of time.
The history of the intervening period is set out partly in an affidavit of Mr. Stefano Lukatero who was then an articled clerk in the firm of solicitors acting for the employee and now a solicitor of the Supreme Court. There is also some correspondence which has been exhibited and we are satisfied that what happened was this. On 23 February, the employee instructed the firm of solicitors, Messrs. Williamsons. The senior partner, Mr. Pullock, had charge of her case. Either on 23 or 24 February the second senior partner left the firm; that caused a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Martin v British Railways Board
-
United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar
...97, a decision of the National Industrial Relations Court—Sir John Donaldson (President); Duke v. Prospect Training Services Ltd.ICR [1988] I.C.R. 521, a decision of this appeal tribunal, Popplewell J. (President) and Martin v. British Railways BoardICR [1989] I.C.R. 24, a decision of the a......
-
Leslie Green v Mears Ltd
...the decision of this Court in Aziz, discussed below, that Mummery J was here referring to the decision of Popplewell J in Duke v Prospect Training Services Ltd [1988] ICR 2 Despite the date of the report Muschett pre-dates the decision of this Court in Jurkowska, discussed below; and this ......
-
Jurkowska v Hlmad Ltd
...was served only one day out of time. [That was a reference to the decision of Popplewell J in Duke v. Prospect Training Services Ltd [1989] IRLR 196]. Parties who have decided to appeal are also strongly advised not to leave service of the Notice of Appeal until the last few days of the 42-......