i have a tribunal coming up next week, and sloshing round in the old grey matter is a vague memory of a commissioner's decision which could come in handy.
does 'mistaken belief, reasonably held' accepted as 'good cause' ring any bells?
if so, could anyone kindly point me at the CD?

i didn't imagine it, did i? : )

thnx

jj

A search of our CD-Rom produces:

R(P) 1/79

"Held that:-
1. in deciding whether there is good cause when ignorance has been put forward as the reason for delay it is necessary to consider whether there are any facts leading to a conclusion that the ignorance was reasonable (paragraph 5);
2. failure to make enquiries does not of itself defeat a plea of good cause if the claimant can show that he could not reasonably have been expected to have been aware of his rights or that a mistaken belief reasonably held by the claimant was responsible for his failure to assert those rights (paragraph 6);..."

"... 5. In their submissions on late claim cases insurance officers conscientiously quote the principle that a person's ignorance of his rights - or of the time limits for claiming - is not of itself good cause for a late claim. But all too often they fail to apply it. They fail to appreciate that the words I have underlined invite a further enquiry, namely whether there are facts leading to a conclusion that the claimant's ignorance was reasonable. In Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan <1979> I.C.R. 52 the Court of Appeal was concerned with an employee's delayed complaint of unfair dismissal made to an industrial tribunal. Lord Denning MR said (at page 56) "Ignorance of his rights - or ignorance of the time limit - is not just cause or excuse, unless it appears that he or his advisors could not reasonably be expected to have been aware of them." And in the same case Brandon LJ pointed out that there could be good cause for delay if the delay was due to a mistaken belief reasonably held."


R(SB)6/83
"Held that:
1. the expression "good cause" in regulation 5(2)(a) of the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1980 and 1981 has the same meaning as in the regulations relating to claims and payments for social security benefits, and the principles set out in existing caselaw apply equally to supplementary benefit claims (paragraph 11);
2. there can be good cause for delay if the delay was due to a mistaken belief reasonably held. The tribunal should have found the facts on which such a belief or impression was based and decided whether that erroneous belief was reasonably held (paragraphs 12(3) and 13);
3. the expression "reasonably practicable" in the context of regulation 5(2)(b) of the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1980 and 1981 has a similar meaning to that attributed to that expression by the Court of Appeal in Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan <1979> ICR 52: (paragraph 17)."

etc, etc.

excellent!
thank you very much!