Shirley Ridley v HB Kirtley t/a Queen's Court Business Centre & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 884
AB v The University of East London
27 September 2024
[2024] EAT 157
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Five people missed deadlines to appeal employment tribunal decisions because they didn't file all the right paperwork. A judge looked at each case carefully. Some got extra time because of their situations (illness, etc.), while others didn't because they were too late and caused problems for the other side.
Key Facts
- •Five appeals against the EAT Registrar's refusal to extend time for lodging appeals.
- •Appeals were lodged within the 42-day limit but lacked required documents under rule 3(1) EAT Rules 1993.
- •Applicants subsequently submitted missing documents out of time and applied for extensions under rule 37.
- •The appeals involved litigants in person and represented parties.
- •The Court of Appeal's decision in Ridley v HB Kirtley [2024] EWCA Civ 884 was considered.
- •The 2023 amendments to EAT Rules, including rule 37(5), were relevant to some appeals.
Legal Principles
EAT's discretion to extend time for lodging appeals.
rule 37(1) EAT Rules
Guidance on exercising the discretion to extend time (Abdelghafar principles).
United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65
Clarification of Abdelghafar principles in light of incomplete submissions.
Ridley v HB Kirtley [2024] EWCA Civ 884
New rule 37(5) for minor errors in complying with rule 3(1).
Employment Appeal Tribunal (Amendment) Rules 2023
Overriding objective of EAT Rules to deal with cases justly.
rule 2A EAT Rules
Requirement to provide an explanation for missing documents under rule 3(1).
rule 3(1) EAT Rules 1993
Outcomes
Appeals in AB v University of East London, Shina v Rendall and Rittner Ltd, and Adams v Power X Group Ltd allowed; extensions granted.
Exceptional circumstances or minor errors justifying extension under rules 37(1) or 37(5).
Appeals in Rehman v Healthbridge and Samuels v Searcy Tansley and Co Ltd refused; extensions dismissed.
Insufficient explanation for default, errors not minor, significant delays, and prejudice to respondents.