[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Iravanian v Luck-Hill (t/a Pizza Hut) [1995] UKEAT 1195_94_3003 (30 March 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/1195_94_3003.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 1195_94_3003

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 1195_94_3003

Appeal No. PA/1195/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 30th March 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

AS IN CHAMBERS

---

MR A IRAVANIAN          APPELLANT

MRS P LUCK-HILL T/A PIZZA HUT          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR A IRAVANIAN

(in Person)

For the Respondents MRS P LUCK-HILLE

(in Person)


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Iravanian against the refusal of the Registrar to extend the time for appealing.

On 13th February 1995 the Registrar, after considering letters written by both sides in relation to Mr Iravanian's application for an extension of time to appeal ordered that the application be refused.

On 16th February 1995 Mr Iravanian wrote to the Appeal Tribunal saying that he disagreed with the order and wished to appeal against it to the judge.

Mr Iravanian has represented himself and has made his submissions to me, as to why he should have an extension. The Respondent, Mrs Luck-Hille opposed the Appeal.

The position is that under the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 a person who wishes to appeal must serve on the Tribunal a Notice of Appeal within 42 days from the date on which the extended written reasons for the decision were sent to the Appellant.

In this case, Mr Iravanian was claiming that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. His case was heard by the Industrial Tribunal at London (North) on 30th August 1994. He conducted his case in person. Mr and Mrs Luck-Hille, the owner and manager respectively of a Pizza Place, conducted their case in person.

The extended reasons for the decision were notified to the parties on 5th October 1994. The Tribunal unaminously decided that Mr Iravanian had not been unfairly dismissed. So his claim failed and was dismissed.

The Notice of Appeal against that decision was not received in this Tribunal until 23rd November 1994. It is dated 18th November, is signed by Mr Iravanian and says he would like to appeal against the decision at the Industrial Tribunal. That application was seven days to late. The Tribunal has power to extend the time for Notices of Appeal which are out of time, but only in rare and exceptional cases. The Tribunal will only grant an extension if a good excuse is shown for not complying with the generous time limit of 42 days. Mr Iravanian has written letters explaining why his appeal was not in time, and he has explained them this afternoon. His case is that the decision was taken by him to the Law Centre, to a Mrs Kelly. He made an appointment to go and see her the following week. When he went back the following week, Mrs Kelly told him that she was tied up and unable to help him with his case. He was told that the Appeal Tribunal section was strict in accepting appeals. She gave him a form to fill in and send in by himself. He did not do that at that stage. He decided to go to a solicitor, Ronald Fletcher & Co, to discuss his case with a Mr Johnson who deals with employment cases. He took more that a week to see him. Then he was asked by Mr Johnson for a fee in order to act. He was not able to afford the cost of the solicitors. So, in the end, he had to fill in the form himself. He phoned the Appeal Tribunal to get some advice, to be sure that he was filling it in properly. He sent it in. The unfortunate aspect of the case is that he sent it in too late.

Those are the circumstances in which Mr Iravanian says that the Registrar should have extended the time. Mrs Luck-Hille's response is that he should have treated the matter more urgently, and sent in immediately the application on his own, as he did ultimately. The fact that there were delays in the getting of advice from the Law Centre and the solicitors were not relevant to the matter.

I have considered the arguments. In my view, this is not an exceptional case. The position is that Mr Iravanian was able to conduct the case himself before the Industrial Tribunal. He had six weeks from 5th October 1994 in which to bring the Appeal. He brought the Appeal by a document which he had prepared himself. The fact that there were delays on the part of the Law Centre and the solicitors in dealing with the matter, are not a good excuse for putting the Notice of Appeal in late.

Mr Iravanian may have reason to complain about the way the Law Centre and the solicitor handled his case. I do not know whether he has grounds or not. The grounds which he has relied on are not sufficiently good grounds for extending the time for appealing.

I dismiss the Appeal against the Registrar's Order.