BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Banai v Bristol & Weston Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 363_90_2007 (20 September 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/363_90_2007.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 363_90_2007 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondents (1) MR A J VICKERS
Personnel Manager
(2) MR D TICEHURST
Solicitor
Osborne Clarke
30 Queen Charlotte Street
Bristol
BS99 7QQ
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): I am dealing here with two Appeals from an Order of the learned Registrar, the first one is numbered PA 41/90; and the second is 363/90.
In the first of those cases a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal was given on the 19th December 1989 and the Notice of Appeal is dated 27th January 1990. The last day for Appeal was 30th January 1990 and Dr Banai posted his Notice of Appeal on the 29th January 1990. It is therefore, because it was received on the 31st January, one day out of time.
The practice in the High Court, which I have suggested should be adopted by Industrial Tribunals, and for the sake of uniformity throughout the country, and will be adopted here, is the ordinary Practice Direction of the Queen's Bench Masters set out at page 193 of the second volume of the "Supreme Court Practice 1991", or in paragraph 760 of that volume. The Practice Direction reads:
"1. Under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service as from April 16, 1985 it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected.
(a)in the case of first class mail on the second working day after posting;
(b)in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting. "Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any Bank Holiday."
Then it goes on to deal with affidavits of service and other Directions which are not relevant.
It follows therefore, that in order for the "deeming" provision to take place it will be necessary for those who wish to Appeal to this country, relying on the post, to post it two working days before a final date of Appeal.
This is the practice which we will adopt here and I hope will be adopted in Tribunals so as to reach a degree of uniformity on this question of posting, which so often takes place over the weekend.
That announcement was not made at the time when Dr Banai posted his Notice of Appeal on the 29th January 1990, therefore he thought that the first post would deliver it on the 30th, the following day, but in fact it did not. He could have posted it earlier but I am prepared in this case to make an exception in that he did not realise that we were going to apply that Practice Direction. However, for the future he is well aware of the time limits and the practice in this Appeal Court because he has had a substantial number of appeals arising out of his applications to industrial tribunals.
I have also allowed earlier this morning, an extension of time where it was posted over the Christmas and Boxing Days of the year.
However, I turn to the second Appeal, which I am hearing at the same time, namely 363/90. In that case the letter was posted on the last day for the Notice of Appeal and therefore there was no possibility that it was going to be delivered here on that very same day, nor could it have ever been expected that that was so, having considered all the matters and the papers, I dismiss that Appeal. There is no excuse for it not being "in time".
I would merely urge Dr Banai for the future, if I have not said it before I will say it now, to post these Notices of Appeal some five days or so before the final date and then he will not find himself with problems over extension of time.
It follows therefore that that latter Appeal is dismissed.
