Appeal No. EAT/1324/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 31 May 2002

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR J R CROSBY
MR P M SMITH

MISS CHRISTINE GRIMES	APPELLANT

THE RIFLEMAN (PUBLIC HOUSE)	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED	

JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1.	Miss Christine Grimes, the Appellant wishes to appeal from a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South on 7 December 2001.  The Tribunal was a chairman sitting alone.  The reasons he was sitting alone was that there was a preliminary point taken as to the reasonable practicability of the Appellant to present a claim in time.  Her claim, as appears from her IT1 was for breach of contract, non payment of wages due and profits.  Her application was lodged on 1 June 2001.  Her application claimed that she was in employment from 30 August 1997 to 12 June 1999.  The Appellant has not appeared this morning to present her appeal.  We have waited till 11.10 am.  No message has been received from her to explain her absence.  Should she arrive in the next hour or so this judgment will be withdrawn and we will proceed to hear her appeal in the normal manner.

2.	The issue before the Chairman was whether she was satisfied that time should be extended in the light of the delay which is apparent from the IT1 which I have read.  The learned Chairman found herself satisfied that the Appellant could have presented a complaint by November 2000 but failed to do so.  She gave some extension of time.  She found it was not just and equitable in the light of the failure for the rest of the period to allow her appeal to go ahead and so dismissed it.

3.	There was an application for a review of his decision dated 1 June 2001.  That review was held by the Chairman and the decision sent to the parties on 22 November 2001.  In the Extended Reasons rejecting that appeal the learned Chairman said:

“Notice of hearing was sent to the parties on 17 July 2001 and by a letter sent to the Applicant on 22 August 2001 she was notified that she should come to the hearing prepared to give evidence why it was not reasonably practicable to present her complaint within three months of the termination of her contract or before the date that she.  (I think the word ‘did’ has been inadvertently omitted).

By the letter, in which she applies for a review of the decision, the Applicant submitted that amongst other things I did not pay proper attention to her evidence and in particular that insufficient regard was had to the fact that she had suffered from a ‘nervous breakdown’.

And she said this:

“I have considered the Applicant’s application; the matters relating to the preliminary hearing were canvassed at the hearing.  Having heard her evidence at the hearing (I think the word I has been omitted)  I was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the Applicant to bring her complaint within three months of January 1999 but considered that she could have brought her complaint in November 2000 but failed to do so.

4.	The Chairman rejected her appeal.  The Notice of Appeal dated 19 October 2001 suggests many points of fact and law on which the Chairman was wrong.  There is a suggestion that the Chairman behaved unfairly and failed properly to take into account points raised by the Appellant.  In that connection the Appellant swore an Affidavit on 4 December 2001 outlining what complaints she was making and the Chairman commented on it on 11 January 2002.

5.	In paragraph 3 of her comments on the Appellant’s Affidavit the Chairman said, at the outset of the hearing, she explained to the Appellant that she would hear evidence on the preliminary matter first and decide that issue first.  If she (“the Chairman”) was not satisfied that the Appellant presented a case within the applicable time limit or as soon as practical thereafter, she would dismiss her complaint, and it would not continue to a full hearing.  The Appellant confirmed that she understood that.  The Chairman’s comments continue:

“She was sworn in and gave her evidence.  The Applicant was not crying and I did not observe signs of her being unduly upset by the proceedings.

After I gave my decision in tribunal she asked if she could ‘say something’.  I said she could not ask me about my decision.  She then said it was only about ... I cannot recall but I think it concerned her expenses.  I told her the clerk would be happy to help her and she could speak to her outside.”

She goes on:

“I have not made a note of the documents I saw.  I believe she produced one set because I recall seeing a letter concerning her medical condition.  However, she would have been expected to prepare for a full hearing and produce 6 copies of documents in accordance with the guidance given to the parties by the booklet sent to them.”

The clerk sat in throughout the hearing and the Chairman believed the clerk spoke to the Appellant as he had suggested.   The Chairman was satisfied that she conducted the hearing efficiently and fairly.

6.	It is always very difficult for an Appellant in person to appear in a Tribunal or Court at a time of stress and there is the additional difficulty if the person is a layman without a litigation friend.  However there was a relatively simple issue for the Chairman to decide whether a complaint had been made in the time in which it must be made in law.  She decided on the facts that the complaint was way out of time.

7.	We have considered everything the Appellant says in her documents to us.  We do not think that the hearing before the learned Chairman was unfair.  In our judgment the decision was one which any Chairman properly addressing himself or herself could properly have reached on the facts and accordingly we do not feel there was an arguable case to go to a full hearing.  In the circumstances we dismiss the appeal at this stage.

8.	We have not ignored a document which the Appellant sent to this Tribunal which was received on 20 May, outlining other points which she wished to make on facts.  We have considered the document which was sent but we have considered all the evidence before the Chairman and the complaint made.  In those circumstances we do not think that there is anything in that letter or the document which would make us alter our decision.