 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pethick v Cloke [1996] UKEAT 1201_95_2407 (24 July 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1201_95_2407.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1201_95_2407 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR A D SCOTT
MRS P TURNER OBE
JUDGMENT
FOR DISPOSAL
Revised
APPEARANCES
NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT OR THE RESPONDENT
JUDGE PETER CLARK: Mr Pethick was and perhaps still is the proprietor of the Triangle Fruit and Vegetable Shop in Belle Vue Lane, Bude, Cornwall.
He employed Mrs Cloke as a full-time assistant from 6th January 1993 until, as the Exeter Industrial Tribunal eventually found, he dismissed her on 8th January 1995.
She complained to the Industrial Tribunal. That complaint was considered by the tribunal on 31st July 1995. Neither party attended, and the matter was decided on the basis of written representations under Rule 8(5) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure 1993.
The tribunal found against Mr Pethick. It adjourned the final calculation of compensation for Mrs Cloke to submit details of her losses.
Rule 3(2) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 provides that the time for appealing to this tribunal shall be 42 days from the date on which extended reasons for the Industrial Tribunal's decision were sent to the parties, here 7th August 1995.
Mr Pethick lodged a Notice of Appeal in this case on 10th October 1995, that is 22 days out of time. There was no explanation for the delay, nor was the notice accompanied by an application for an extension of time.
Upon receipt of the Notice the Registrar wrote to Mr Pethick on 11th October 1995 inviting him to make application for an extension of time. No reply was received. The Registrar wrote again on 15th December 1995, giving him 21 days in which to respond, failing which the matter would be set down before the Appeal Tribunal for disposal. Again no response was received, and nothing further has been heard from Mr Pethick. He has not appeared today.
We have before us an undated letter from Mrs Cloke enquiring about the progress of the appeal, since she wishes to recover the compensation to which the Industrial Tribunal found she is entitled.
We can answer that enquiry quite simply. The appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed.