M Shah v Home Office
[2024] EAT 21
D Akhigbe v St Edward Thomas Homes Ltd (SEH) & Ors
6 September 2024
[2024] EAT 142
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Someone appealed a court decision late and missed some paperwork. The court initially accepted the appeal but then had second thoughts. The person eventually fixed the paperwork issues and withdrew part of their appeal. The court decided to let them continue their appeal even though they were initially late and incomplete because it was considered a fair outcome under the circumstances.
Key Facts
- •Mr Akhigbe appealed an Employment Tribunal (ET) judgment concerning seven claims, focusing on four (two from 2018, two from 2019).
- •He initially filed some, but not all, required pleadings within the 42-day appeal deadline.
- •The EAT initially accepted the appeal but later received an application to revoke the acceptance due to incomplete filings.
- •Mr Akhigbe later withdrew challenges to the 2019 claims.
- •The EAT considered the application for review, focusing on Rule 3(1) EAT Rules 1993 and the Court of Appeal's decision in Ridley v HB Kirtley.
Legal Principles
Rules governing the institution of appeals in the EAT, specifically Rule 3(1) regarding required documentation (pleadings or explanation for omissions).
EAT Rules 1993
EAT's discretion to extend time for filing appeals under Rule 37(1).
EAT Rules 1993
The three-part test from Abdelghafar for extending time: explanation for default, good excuse, and justifying circumstances.
United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65
Distinction between appeals lodged on time with missing documents and appeals lodged late.
Ridley v HB Kirtley [2024] EWCA Civ 875
The overriding objective of the EAT Rules is to deal with cases justly.
Rule 2A EAT Rules
Outcomes
The EAT granted an extension of time for Mr Akhigbe's appeal.
While Mr Akhigbe initially failed to comply with Rule 3(1) by omitting pleadings for certain claims, his subsequent withdrawal of challenges to those claims, coupled with his eventual filing of all required documents, constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the extension. The EAT found that his explanation, though not perfect, was sufficient given the overall circumstances.
The EAT dismissed the respondents' application to revoke the order permitting the appeal to proceed.
The EAT found that while an error was made in initially accepting the appeal due to incomplete filings, the subsequent events, including the withdrawal of challenges and complete filing of documents, justified granting the extension of time and refusing the revocation application.