Gritz v. Gate-Free Ltd Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2000] UKEAT 665_00_2306 (23 June 2000)
The applicant failed to provide evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months, and there was no misdirection by the tribunal; thus, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] UKEAT 665_00_2306
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Gritz; Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 23 June 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Preliminary Hearing Ex Parte
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Period, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Insolvency
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Gritz
Appellant
First Respondent
Respondent
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Preliminary Hearing Ex Parte
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether it was reasonably practicable for the applicant to present his claim within three months
- 2 Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaint
- 3 Whether the respondent company was insolvent
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to provide evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months, and there was no misdirection by the tribunal; thus, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JUDGMENT PRELIMINARY HEARING EX-PARTE © Copyright 2000 APPEARANCES For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT JUDGE DAVID WILCOX : Mr Gritz is not present. The appeal relates to his failure to present his complaint against the Respondent within three months after 20 March 1998, which was the material date. He was unable, in his application to the Tribunal, to produce any correspondence or documents to show that he was promised by his employer, the First Respondent, payment of sums which were due which would warrant him therefore waiting. The issue before the Chairman was clearly whether it was reasonably practicable for the Applicant to have presented his claim against the First Respondent within three months. He did not persuade the Chairman thus and, in the absence of any evidence that it was reasonably practicable or that there was misdirection, it is clear that the Chairman of the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's substantive complaint against the First Respondent. It is interesting to note that a search was in fact made against the Respondent. That search relating to insolvency, in particular, the Company search indicated that no steps had been taken to show that the Company had in fact been put into liquidation. The Chairman was not satisfied that the Respondent was insolvent and, for that reason alone, it is clear that substantively the Applicant's complaints against the Second Respondent, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the appeal could not be maintained. There is no merit in the appeal and we dismiss it. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII