Appeal No.	 EAT/234/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 June 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILCOX
MR D J JENKINS MBE
MR T C THOMAS CBE

MR KENNETH FRANCIS SCULLY	APPELLANT

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICE NHS TRUST	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR BIRKBY
Advisor	

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILCOX:

1.	We are dealing with a limited question here; it is whether there is any warrant for interfering with a Tribunal’s decision about providing extended reasons.  There is a time limit set down during which, extended reasons should be asked for.  It is 21 days.  It is clearly a matter that is known to those who advise in this sort of case. We take into account the fact that the Appellant was under some degree of psychiatric disadvantage.  We have had sick notes put before us; there has been various documentation puts before us, that testify to that.  We take account of it.

2.	We are told on behalf of Mr Scully that similar documentation was put before the Tribunal, on 9 November 1999.  It was then that they ruled that the Originating Application was 13 months out of time.  They clearly considered why and whether it would have been practicable to in fact serve it within the time limit.  The evidence is that Mr Scully by 10 November following that adjudication was aggrieved at it.  We know that because it is a matter of record that despite his difficulties, he was live enough and sensible enough to write to the Tribunal at length.  He wrote a number of letters to the Tribunal that were referred to in the letter from the Employment Tribunal’s 14 East Parade, Sheffield on 24 November 1999.  

3.	It is our view that he would have been live to matters such as time limits.  His advisors certainly would have been because the whole object of the hearing on 9 November was to enquire into and consider an application to extend the time limit in relation to which an Originating Application should have been served.  We think that there is no merit in this short point and we therefore have taken the view that there is no arguable case upon this limited issue to go to a full Tribunal.  We dismiss the appeal.