M Jasim v LHR Airports Limited
[2024] EAT 59
Adrian Ikeji v Office of Rail and Road & Ors
5 June 2024
[2024] EAT 87
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Someone appealed two decisions from an employment tribunal. The court decided that when you appeal multiple decisions at once, you only need to submit the relevant paperwork for the decision you are appealing, not everything. This makes it easier to appeal complex cases.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Adrian Ikeji appealed a Registrar's Order refusing an extension of time to institute his appeal to the EAT.
- •Ikeji brought two claims to the Employment Tribunal (ET): Claim 3201367/2022 (first claim) and Claim 3204202/2022 (second claim).
- •At a Preliminary Hearing, his application for interim relief (in the second claim) and an application to amend the second claim were refused.
- •Ikeji appealed the refusals to the EAT, but initially omitted documents relating to the first claim.
- •The EAT considered whether the appeal was properly instituted, focusing on the interpretation of Rule 3(1)(b) of the EAT Rules 1993, which required submission of 'any claim and response' in the ET proceedings when appealing a judgment.
- •The EAT also examined whether the missing documents were required given the appeal concerned only the second claim's decisions.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of Rule 3(1)(b) of the EAT Rules 1993 regarding the documents required when appealing a judgment from the Employment Tribunal, particularly when multiple claims are involved.
EAT Rules 1993, Rule 3(1)(b)
The sufficiency of an 'explanation' for not providing required documents under Rule 3(1)(b), as addressed in Richardson v Extreme Roofing Ltd [2022] EAT 173 and MTN-1 Ltd v O’Daly [2022] EAT 130.
Richardson v Extreme Roofing Ltd [2022] EAT 173; MTN-1 Ltd v O’Daly [2022] EAT 130
Whether multiple claims before the ET constitute a single claim for the purpose of appealing decisions relating to one claim, as explored in Sud v London Borough of Ealing [2011] EWCA Civ 995, Carroll v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime [2015] ICR 835, and Shah v The Home Office [2024] EAT 21.
Sud v London Borough of Ealing [2011] EWCA Civ 995; Carroll v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime [2015] ICR 835; Shah v The Home Office [2024] EAT 21
The distinction between 'consolidation' and claims 'being heard together' in the context of Employment Tribunal Rules.
Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rule 29
Treatment of appeals against Orders versus judgments under Rule 3 of the EAT Rules 1993.
EAT Rules 1993, Rule 3(1)(e)
Outcomes
The appeal against the refusal of interim relief was properly instituted.
Only the ET1 claim and ET3 response for the second claim (the subject of the appeal) were required, and these were submitted.
The appeal against the refusal to amend was properly instituted.
Appeals against Orders (not judgments) under Rule 3(1)(e) did not require submission of the ET1 claim or ET3 response.
The Registrar's refusal of an extension of time was overturned.
The appeal regarding the second claim was properly instituted; the interpretation of “any” in Rule 3(1)(b) only necessitates the relevant ET1 and ET3 for the appealed claim, not all claims.