M Shah v Home Office
[2024] EAT 21
Shirley Ridley v HB Kirtley t/a Queen's Court Business Centre & Ors
25 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 884
Court of Appeal
Three people missed small parts of their paperwork when appealing employment tribunal decisions. The appeals court said the lower court was too strict, and should give them another chance because they mostly did things right on time. The lower court must now look at the cases again fairly.
Key Facts
- •Three appeals to the Court of Appeal (CA) concerned the Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) refusal to extend time limits for appeals from Employment Tribunals (ETs).
- •In each case, the appellants filed notices of appeal within the 42-day time limit but omitted part of the required documentation (employer's grounds of resistance).
- •The EAT treated the late submission of the missing documents as applications for extensions of time, which were refused at each stage (Registrar and EAT judge).
- •Appellants argued the EAT erred in law by not extending time, considering substantial compliance with the rules and the rigidity of precedent.
- •Two appellants represented themselves, one had pro bono representation.
Legal Principles
The EAT has a discretion to extend time limits under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993.
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, Rule 37(1)
The exercise of discretion must be principled, not arbitrary, weighing all relevant factors and guided by reason and justice.
Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65
Time limits are crucial for efficient litigation but shouldn't deny a hearing on the merits unless prejudice to the respondent exists.
Costellow v Somerset CC [1993] 1 WLR 256
Stricter approach to time limits on appeals than interlocutory steps, prioritizing certainty and finality.
Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65
Substantial compliance with Rule 3(1) within the time limit is a relevant factor in extending time.
This judgment
The EAT's overriding objective is to deal with cases justly, including ensuring equality, proportionality, expedition, and fairness.
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, Rule 2A
Outcomes
Appeals allowed.
The EAT failed to consider the appellants' substantial compliance with Rule 3(1) within the time limit as a relevant factor in exercising its discretion under Rule 37(1). The Court found that previous authorities had created overly rigid sub-rules, preventing a proper, case-by-case consideration of the facts. The EAT's approach was deemed to be 'packaged' and 'programmed' responses instead of a judicial exercise of discretion.
Cases remitted to the EAT.
The EAT must reconsider the applications for extensions of time in light of the Court's judgment, acknowledging the material distinction between late appeals and timely appeals with missing documents.