F Amedzo v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited
[2024] EAT 148
M Hewer & Anor v HCT Group & Ors
14 August 2024
[2024] EAT 133
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Two people appealed a court decision but forgot to include a key document. The appeal court considered whether to let them fix their mistake. They decided to allow it because the mistake was the lawyer's fault, it was quickly fixed, and the other side wasn't hurt by the delay.
Key Facts
- •Two claimants appealed a decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET), but failed to include the written judgment in their initial appeal submission, only including the written reasons.
- •The EAT initially notified the claimants' solicitors of the missing document on 15 February 2023, with the missing document being supplied shortly thereafter.
- •The Registrar refused an extension of time, leading to the claimants' appeal of the Registrar's order.
- •The claimants argued the e-filing portal was unclear and only allowed one judgment upload, leading to the omission.
- •The respondents raised no significant prejudice from the delay.
Legal Principles
Rule 3 of the EAT Rules 1993 required submission of the written judgment for proper appeal institution; no explanation for its absence is permitted.
EAT Rules 1993, Rule 3(1)(c)
In appeals to the EAT, the grant or refusal of an extension of time is a matter of judicial discretion, weighing the relevant factors, including the explanation for the delay, the presence of good excuse, and any justifying circumstances.
United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Anor [1995] ICR 65
There is a material distinction between lodging an appeal almost completely in time but with a missing document, and lodging nothing until after the time limit.
Ridley [2024] EWCA Civ 884
Rule 37(5) EAT Rules (effective 30 September 2023) allows extension of time for minor errors in document submission, if rectified, considering all circumstances, including timeliness of rectification and prejudice to respondents.
EAT Rules, Rule 37(5)
Omission of core documents like the written judgment is generally not a 'minor error' under Rule 37(5) EAT Rules.
Melki v Bouygues E&S Contracting UK Ltd [2024] EAT 36
The fault of the claimant's legal advisor can be a factor in deciding on extension, but should not be given much weight unless entirely responsible and a clear case is made.
Carroll v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime [2015] I.C.R. 835
Outcomes
The appeal of the Registrar's order was allowed; an extension of time was granted.
The judge considered the error to be primarily that of the claimants' solicitors, the delay was short after notification, the respondents showed no significant prejudice, and the written reasons provided sufficient material for understanding the appeal.