[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Trevena v. Multitech Services Ltd [2002] UKEAT 1509_00_2511 (25 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1509_00_2511.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1509_00_2511, [2002] UKEAT 1509__2511

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. On 13 June 2000 the Applicant, Mr Trevena, presented an Originating Application to the London (South) Employment Tribunal complaining of unfair dismissal against his former employer, the Respondent, Multitech Services Ltd, by whom he was employed from 10 January until 18 March 2000. In the final line of his particulars of complaint at Box 11 he added this:

"I have not been paid for my overtime by Multitech Services."

The claim was resisted.

2. On 6 October 2000 a Chairman, Mr A M Snelson, struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the Applicant had not completed one year's qualifying service (Employment Rights Act 1996, s.108 (1)). ("The first strike out order").
3. On 30 October 2000 that same Chairman struck out the Applicant's overtime claim for failure to deliver adequate particulars of that claim. ("The second strike out order").
4. On 5 November the Applicant applied for a review of the second strike out order.
5. A review hearing was held before a full Tribunal chaired by Ms C E Taylor on 2 March 2001. That Tribunal promulgated two decisions with Extended Reasons dated 28 March 2001. By the first review decision the Tribunal granted the Applicant's application to review the second strike out order and revoked that order made by Mr Snelson. By the second review decision the Tribunal dismissed his complaint of breach of contract, that is for overtime payments, on its merits. ("The second review decision").
6. The Applicant applied for a review of the second review decision, which was summarily dismissed by Ms Taylor by a further review decision dated 8 May 2001. ("The further review decision").
7. Today we have before us two appeals for ex parte Preliminary Hearing:

(1) EAT/1509/00. An appeal against the second strike out order ("The first appeal").

(2) EAT/0782/02. ("The second appeal") An appeal against:

(a) the first strike out order dated 6 October 2000. This part of the appeal is well out of time, Notice of Appeal having been lodge on 9 May 2001. Further, an appeal against the first strike out order, in PA/0676/01, itself 173 days out of time, was struck out by order of the Deputy Registrar, dated 17 October 2002. We shall not, in these circumstances, extend time for an appeal which:

(i) has been adjudicated on;

(ii) is well out of time; and

(iii) is hopeless, the Applicant having completed less than one year's qualifying service for the purpose of unfair dismissal protection.

(b) the second review decision.

As to the first appeal, the second strike out order was revoked by the first review decision. That appeal is consequently rendered moot and is dismissed.

8. As to the remainder of the second appeal, that is against the second review decision, by a letter to the Registrar dated 18 November 2002 the Applicant states:

"I have decided not to participate in the farce that the Employment Tribunals have become (both ET & EAT)."

We have therefore not had the advantage of representation made by, or on behalf of, the Applicant.

9. Looking at his Notice of Appeal against the second review decision he complains that the Taylor Tribunal refused his application to add complaints in relation to holiday pay and illegal deductions from expenses to his Originating Application by way of amendment. Those applications are dealt with at paragraph 3 of the second review decision reasons. They were very late and in our judgment the Tribunal was entitled, as a matter of discretion, to refuse permission to amend. See Selkent v Moore [1996] ICR 836.
10. As to the claim to overtime payments, the Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that he was not contractually entitled to overtime payments during his short employment with the Respondent. Our jurisdiction is limited to correcting error of law. None being raised by the Applicant, we must dismiss this appeal also.