Swainston v Hetton Victory Club Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE WATKINS,LORD JUSTICE FOX |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Civ J0210-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 10 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | 83/0036 |
[1983] EWCA Civ J0210-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM
THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice,
Lord Justice Waller
Lord Justice Watkins
Lord Justice Fox
83/0036
MR A. KELMAN (instructed by Messrs. Berry & Berry, Cocker Smith & Co., Solicitors, Bolton) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR R. SOWLER (instructed by Messrs. Swinburne & Jackson) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
This is an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, President Mr. Justice Browne-Wilkinson, raising the question of the calculation of time for the presentation to the Industrial Tribunal of a complaint of unfair dismissal. Section 67 (2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978, provides: "(2) Subject to subsection (4), an industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of three months."
It was agreed between the parties that the complainant's dismissal was on 7th September and that the end of the period of 3 months would be 6th December. It was further accepted that no help was available on the basis that it would not have been reasonably practicable to serve in time. The appellant contended that because 6th December was a Sunday, and the Industrial Tribunal Office was closed on Sunday, presentation on Monday the 7th was in time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held in a full and careful judgment that it was out of time, and this appeal is brought against that decision.
Under R.S.C., Order 3, rule 4, where the time prescribed by the rules ends on a Sunday the act shall be done within time if done on the next day. In Pritam Kaur v. S. Russell and Sons Ltd. (1973) Q.B. 336, the Court of Appeal held that where the limitation period expired on a non-working day, a writ was issued within the period provided, if it was issued on the next day on which the court was open. Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, at page 349, said: "So I am prepared to hold that when a time is prescribed by statute for doing any act, and that act can only be done if the court office is open on the day when the time expires, then, if it turns out in any particular case that the day is a Sunday or other dies non, the time is extended until the next day on which the court office is open.
In support of this conclusion, I would refer to Hughes v. Griffiths (1862) 13 C.B.N.S. 324. It was on a different statute, but the principle was enunciated by Erle C.J., at page 333: '…Where the act is to be done by the court, and the court refuses to act on that day, the intendment of the law is that the party shall have until the earliest day on which the court will act.'"
And Mr Justice Megarry at page 356, said: "There are a number of cases which support the general rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Aken v Camden London Borough Council
...court office is open." (Emphasis supplied) 29 Aadan is, however, to be contrasted with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Swainston v Hetton Victory Club Ltd [1983] 1 All ER 1179, where the act which had to be done within the prescribed time was the presentation of a complaint to an in......
- Smith v Tyne and Wear Autistic Society
-
Stewart's Hardware Ltd v Commissioner of General Consumption Tax; Dominion House Ltd v Commissioner of General Income Tax
...In the concise Oxford Dictionary, 8 th Edition to "hand down" is "to transmit (a decision) from a higher court etc." In Swainston v. Hetton Victory Club Ltd. [1983] 1 All E.R. 1179 the headnote which accurately reflects the substance of the English Court of Appeal judgment states: "Since p......
-
Stewarts Hardware v Commissioner of General Consumption Tax ; Dominion House Ltd v Commissioner of General Consumption Tax [Consolidated Suits]
...to the person's omission or default, the assessment shall be null and void. 13Counsel for the Appellant relied upon SWAINSTON v HETTON VICTORY CLUB LIMITED [1983] 1 All E.R. 1179 which purported to apply strictly the relevant law with respect to time limits. He submitted that fax service w......