Appeal No.	 EAT/320/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 June 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MRS D M PALMER
MR R SANDERSON OBE

MR W MURTAUGH	APPELLANT

PARK ROYAL HAULAGE LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR NAPIER
(Of Counsel)
ELAAS	

		MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law raised in Mr Murtaugh’s appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman not to extend time for giving extended reasons for a summary decision.

	The background can be shortly stated.  Mr Murtaugh brought a claim against his former employers, Park Royal Haulage Ltd, alleging unfair dismissal.  That complaint was considered by an Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on 30 September 1996.  At that hearing the Applicant was represented by someone whom the Tribunal subsequently described as an experienced CAB representative.  The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed and the Tribunal announced that fact at the hearing on 30 September.  

	It is Mr Murtaugh’s case that he was of the view from that date onwards, that he wished to take such steps, as were open to him to appeal that decision with which he did not agree.  The decision was in summary form, reduced to writing and sent to the parties on 14 October 1996.  We are told by Mr Murtaugh, through Mr Napier, to whom we are grateful, that the decision was in fact sent directly to the CAB, together with the usual accompanying document, which explains to parties and their representatives precisely what their rights are to have the decision reviewed or appealed.  

	On 28 October 1996 a Notice of Correction was sent correcting what could be regarded as an important part of their decision.  That was sent to the Citizens Advice Bureau representative as well.  Thereafter there was no communication between the Citizens Advice Bureau and Mr Murtaugh until towards the end, as we understand it, of November or the beginning of December, when he contacted them and as a result of his contact they sent to him the decision and the Notice of Correction but not the accompanying leaflet.  He wrote to the Industrial Tribunal on 5 December shortly after receiving the decision and the Notice of Correction, saying that it was his intention to appeal and could he have any proforma documents that were required and be given guidance as to his legal rights.

	On 12 December 1995 having obtained such from the Employment Appeal Tribunal through a telephone call, he presented to us a Notice of Appeal, but of course it was not competent for us to receive it because the decision was only in summary form.  Accordingly on 18 December 1996 the Deputy Registrar informed Mr Murtaugh of the position.  Although, it has to be said, this letter was perfectly clear in its import, it was unfortunately misunderstood by Mr Murtaugh, when he received it subsequently on his return from holiday on about 7 January 1997.  He thought that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was requiring from him an extended written reason for his appeal, rather than for the Industrial Tribunal to be asked to give extended written reasons for their decision.  He wrote to us therefore on 10 January 1997 and on 24 January his mistake was pointed out to him.  Accordingly, on 3 February he applied to the Industrial Tribunal to give their extended reasons.

	It seems to us that there was a significant and culpable period of delay between the 14th or thereabouts of October and the 1st December.  It seems to us that if Mr Murtaugh’s account is correct, it was the duty of the Citizens Advice Bureau to send him the documentation timeously, which meant within a few days after they had received it, particularly bearing in mind, as we understand it, that Mr Murtaugh had communicated to them on the date of the hearing, that it was his intention to appeal the decision when it came out in writing.  It also seems to us that Mr Murtaugh should be criticised for misunderstanding the letter which was sent to him by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and to that extent some period of time was lost as a result of that misunderstanding.  Having regard to the importance of time limits being strictly adhered to in this particular field, it seems to us that the Industrial Tribunal Chairman was acting within his discretion when he refused to extend time for providing extended reasons.  He was aware of the implications of a refusal to exercise his discretion.  He reminded himself of the importance of the time limits and he obviously reviewed quite carefully, as is apparent from the letter of decision of 11 February 1997, all the relevant facts.

	We are not prepared to say that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was perverse in this respect and although in one sense it is unsatisfactory for Mr Murtaugh to find himself in a position where he is unable to challenge the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, I think we can add that on a brief review of the documents that he has supplied to us and looking at the summary reasons, we have no reason to believe that even if he had been permitted to put in a Notice of Appeal it would have been likely to have stood any sensible prospect of success and in all probability would have been subject to dismissal at the Preliminary Hearing stage.  But that of course is not part of the essence of the reasoning of our decision.

	So, despite the argument for which we are grateful, presented to us ably by Mr Napier, we are not prepared to accede to this application and accordingly the appeal will be dismissed.