Appeal No. EAT/103/94
	EAT/991/94

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 5 October 1995

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS QC

	MR E HAMMOND OBE

	MRS R A VICKERS

MR M KERR	APPELLANT

NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR P OLDHAM
(Of Counsel)
Messrs J W Saunders & Co
Solicitors
10 Cross Street
Erith
Kent
DA8  1TR

For the Respondents	MR T WALKER
	(Of Counsel)
	Messrs Cripps Harries Hall
	Solicitors
	Seymour House
	11/13 Mount Ephraim Road	
	Tunbridge Wells	
	Kent
	TN1  1EN

		JUDGE HICKS QC:   There is a preliminary point as to whether this appeal is properly before us and, if not properly before us as of right, whether we should nevertheless exercise a discretion which it is common ground that we have to hear it.  The relevant facts are that following the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal the Tribunal promulgated summary reasons on 22 December 1993, the hearing having been on 13 December, so that the summary reasons were promulgated nine days after the hearing.

	Those summary reasons are reasons for the disposal of the substantive application.  They make no mention of the fact that in the course of the hearing, indeed at the beginning of the hearing, there had been an application by the Applicant, Mr Kerr, for an adjournment, which had been refused.  Following the promulgation of those summary reasons the Applicant, within a very short period, lodged what purported to be a Notice of Appeal against the refusal of the adjournment.  Some months later the Applicant applied to the Chairman for Extended Reasons of both the substantive decision and the refusal of the adjournment.  That application was made on 4 August 1994.  On 10 August the Regional Secretary replied that the Chairman had refused the application for Extended Reasons, because it was received outside the time limit provided for in Rule 10(4)(c)(ii), but that the Chairman was prepared to explain the refusal to adjourn the hearing, and a note concerning that was attached. 

	The note is plainly in a form which, so far as content is concerned, would be perfectly capable of being full reasons.  On receipt of that note the Applicant's solicitors asked for confirmation that those notes constituted full written reasons for the refusal and the Regional Secretary replied that they did.  Mr Walker for the Respondents to the appeal submits that in those circumstances there is no appeal properly on foot and for the purpose of deciding that I need to mention a final fact, which I omitted, that following the receipt of that note of the reasons for refusal to adjourn a fresh Notice of Appeal was issued, and it is that second Notice of Appeal which Mr Oldham relies as being a valid Notice of Appeal so far as compliance with the rules is concerned.

	Rule 10 of The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 provides in sub rule 3 that the Tribunal shall give reasons and in sub rule 4 that the reasons shall be in summary form with certain exceptions.  Exception (a) concerns decisions under particular statutes.  Exception (b) deals with the case where a request for reasons in extended form is made orally at the hearing, and presumably that did not occur in this case.  Exception (d) gives the Tribunal, in effect, a power to give its reasons in full form whenever it considers that summary reasons would not be sufficient, and (c) deals with requests made by a party after the hearing, providing that Extended Reasons are to be given if a request is made either before any document recording the reasons in summary form is sent to the parties or within 21 days of the date on which that document was sent to the parties.  It was the latter sub-paragraph which was referred to in the letter of 10 August refusing the application for Extended Reasons and the Chairman must therefore by inference have taken the view that the request was a request more than 21 days after the date of the summary reasons promulgated on 22 December. 

	Nevertheless the Regional Secretary confirmed that the note given by the Chairman did amount to full reasons for the refusal to adjourn and we can see nothing whatsoever in the rules that prevents the Industrial Tribunal from responding to a request out of time, and for that reason alone would consider that the reasons contained in the Chairman's notes and described by the Regional Secretary as being full reasons were full reasons for the purposes of founding an appeal.  Even if we were wrong about that, there is the further point that the summary reasons given on 22 December concerned only the substantive appeal.  There never had been any summary reasons given for the refusal to adjourn and the Chairman's refusal on 10 August must, in our view, therefore be understood as being a refusal going simply to the reasons for the substantive decision, because those were the only reasons to which that rule could apply, and for that reason also we consider that the notes which he gave amounted to full and valid full reasons so as to found an appeal.

	For those reasons we consider that the appeal is properly before us.  In case we are wrong about that we are quite clear that if there has been any non-compliance we ought to exercise the discretion which it is conceded we have to proceed with the hearing.  We shall do so.