Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 26 February 1999 Before
JUDGE PETER CLARK : This appeal raises yet again the perennial problem of an Appellant lodging a notice of appeal against a substantive Employment Tribunal decision but with summary reasons only attached. Rule 3(1)(c) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 , and indeed paragraph 5 of the Standard Form Notice of Appeal used by the Appellant in this case make it clear that Extended Written Reasons must be served with the Notice.
Having received a defective Notice of Appeal, as in this case, it is standard practice for the Registrar to write to the Appellant pointing out the need for Extended Reasons. The Appellant then applies to the Employment Tribunal Chairman for Extended Reasons. That application is invariably out of time under the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure which by Rule 10(4)(c)(ii) provide that a request for Extended Written Reasons must be made, if not earlier, within 21 days of the promulgation of written summary reasons.
What then happens is that the Employment Tribunal refuses to provide the Extended Reasons on the ground that the request is out of time. The Appellant is advised to appeal against that refusal.
(a) refused the request for Extended Written Reasons because it was made outside the 21 day period, and
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.