[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Amin v MacPherson Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1162_98_0507 (5 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1162_98_0507.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1162_98_507, [1999] UKEAT 1162_98_0507

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondent	Mr R Bowden G E Macpherson Ltd Lenton Lane Nottingham NG7 2NT


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal against the refusal of the Registrar to extend time to Mr Amin to enable him to appeal against a decision of an Employment Tribunal which was heard on 17^th November 1995. The decision was sent to the parties on 29^th November. He applied to the Tribunal unsuccessfully for a review of that decision which was sent to the parties on 22^nd December 1995 and the Appeal is approximately 25 months out of time. There was a second case – the first one being a claim of unlawful discrimination whilst in employment with the Respondents Geoffrey E MacPherson Ltd. There was a second complaint arising from his dismissal which led to a further decision of an Employment Tribunal which was sent to the parties on 7^th January 1998. The Appeal against that decision is within time and can go ahead on the limited grounds indicated in the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision on 1^st July 1998.

1. I am not persuaded by Mr Amin that I have been provided with a full explanation for the delay in appealing the first decision. He told me that he was suffering from stress and pressure and intimidation as he saw it, but he was capable of bringing his employers to the Employment Tribunal whilst still employed by them. He was capable of applying for a Review during the 42 day period for lodging an Appeal. He was aware of the time limit. He said that he was suffering from depression and thereafter, left it to his solicitors who were handling the second application who told him that after the second case was over, he could appeal in relation to the first case as well, although it would have to be a separate Appeal.
2. I do not accept that any of the reasons put forward by Mr Amin represents a reasonable explanation or excuse for the very substantial delay in appealing the first Tribunal's decision. I am bound to say that I have difficulty in accepting that Mr Amin was deterred in any way by his employers from putting in a Notice of Appeal. The history of the proceedings suggests that that cannot be so. Nor was I provided with any medical evidence to suggest that he was incapable of putting in a Notice of Appeal due to stress and, as to the suggestion that he was misled by his solicitors, by the time that he was consulting solicitors about the second case, I think the time had well expired by then. In any event, I am doubtful whether the fact that his solicitors gave him the advice (if they did) which he suggests they gave, would have provided him with any reasonable explanation or excuse for the delay.
3. That being so, I have to say that I agree with the Registrar's decision and this Appeal will be dismissed.