Ramanlal v Sheth

Permission to appeal requires proposed grounds to have a real prospect of success. An appeal from an employment tribunal is confined to errors of law. A party’s disagreement with factual findings does not create an appealable point. A procedural ground also fails where its factual premise is absent, such as where the relevant time had in fact been extended. Permission may therefore be refused where no legal error appears and the only arguable procedural point is contradicted by the record.

Mr T K Ramanlal brought claims against Puspakkani Sheth concerning unlawful deductions from wages, itemised pay slips and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the complaints, finding that Mr Ramanlal was not employed by Mr Sheth, that he was a worker engaged by Mrs Patel, that all sums due had been paid, and that he had resigned if he was employed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed only a procedural point concerning Mr Sheth’s notice of appearance to proceed to a full hearing. It later dismissed the appeal, finding that the time for filing the notice had been extended. Mr Ramanlal applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal both decisions and for an extension of time in relation to the first. The central issue was whether the proposed grounds disclosed a real prospect of success and an error of law.

The Court of Appeal refused the application for permission to appeal. The order was: application dismissed.

1. Applicable threshold. The applicant had to show that the proposed grounds had a real prospect of success. The appellate jurisdiction was confined to errors of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision.
2. Factual findings. Mr Ramanlal’s complaints about his employment status, the sums due to him and the circumstances of his dismissal sought to challenge the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence. The Court held that there was no appeal against findings of fact and identified no error of law in the Tribunal’s treatment of the claims for unlawful deductions or unfair dismissal.
3. Procedural point. The only arguable point concerned whether Mr Sheth could participate after filing his notice of appearance out of time. The full Employment Appeal Tribunal had found that the notice was subject to an order extending time. The factual foundation for the proposed challenge therefore did not exist.
4. Conclusion. The Court had considered the Tribunal decisions and Mr Ramanlal’s detailed submissions, including his complaints about representation and the alleged constructive dismissal. None disclosed a ground with a real prospect of success. Permission to appeal and the associated extension of time were refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2002] EWCA Civ 131, refused permission to appeal against the two Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions and refused the requested extension of time.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal — At a preliminary hearing on 21 September 2001, allowed only the notice-of-appearance point to proceed. At the full hearing on 10 December 2001, dismissed the appeal after finding that Mr Sheth’s filing time had been extended.
3. Employment Tribunal — Heard the claims on 24 July 2000 and unanimously dismissed them. Extended reasons were sent on 5 March 2001. An application for review was rejected on 14 June 2001.