The employment tribunal has been criticised in a high court judgment after a claimant got ’caught up in a legal mess’.

John Charles Heayns took his case to a tribunal after claiming he had been summarily dismissed from his job at Athol Garage, in Balthane industrial estate, Ballasalla, on June 26 last year.

Athol Garage denies this, insisting Mr Heayns had left his job on his own volition.

The claim form to the employment tribunal was submitted on September 17 but the response from Athol Garage’s lawyer was not filed until October 23, a week after the cut-off date.

An application for an extension of time was refused by the tribunal chairman and his decision was upheld following a review.

But Deemster Andrew Corlett has ruled that the chairman in this case ought to have allowed the review and to have granted an extension of time to Athol Garage.

He concluded that the tribunal chairman had come to a mistaken view of the law and that the interests of justice required such a review.

Deemster Corlett ordered an extension to the time limit for the response to be lodged.

He said: ’I have a great deal of sympathy with Mr Heayns who appears in person and has put his position courteously and sensibly and who told me, and I am sure that he is right in saying this, that he feels let down by the whole system.

’He has become caught up in a legal mess to put it bluntly and I think the best thing is for this case to be heard at the earliest opportunity so he has his say together with those of his witnesses and he is able to get this matter put behind him.’ In his judgment, the Deemster also criticised the technical way employment tribunal’s decisions had been worded.

He said he was going to endeavour to express himself concisely ’which I regret to say is not a merit of the employment tribunal chairman’s decisions in this matter’.

Deemster Corlett concluded in his ruling by saying in his view it is very important that the Employment and Equality Tribunal tries its utmost to avoid undue technicality in dealing with its difficult decisions.

He said: ’I have a great deal of sympathy with employment tribunal chairpersons.

’They have to deal with often very difficult issues and often where applicants and indeed respondents are unrepresented but they do have a duty to try to avoid undue technicality and to keep things as informal as they possibly can.

’It is also very important that their decisions be expressed concisely and that their decisions be of a manageable length so that parties, particularly lay people, can understand them and come to a relatively quick view as to why cases have been decided in the way they have.’