F Amedzo v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited
[2024] EAT 148
M Jasim v LHR Airports Limited
28 March 2024
[2024] EAT 59
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker appealed two related workplace decisions. One appeal was on time; the other wasn't because he forgot to attach some paperwork. The court understood his mistake was small and forgave him, letting him appeal the second case as well, because the delay didn't greatly harm the employer.
Key Facts
- •Mr Jasim brought two employment tribunal claims (Claim No. 3335322 of 2018 and Claim No. 3320062 of 2019), both dismissed.
- •His Notice of Appeal, filed on 30 August 2021, was missing ET1 and ET3 forms for Claim No. 3335322 of 2018.
- •The appeal was deemed out of time by the Registrar.
- •Mr Jasim appealed the Registrar's decision to the EAT.
- •The EAT considered the application for extension of time under Rule 37(5) of the EAT Rules and also relevant case law.
Legal Principles
Whether two claims heard together constitute a single claim for appeal purposes.
Sud v London Borough of Ealing [2011] EWCA Civ 995
Interpretation of EAT Rule 3(1)(b) regarding required documents for an appeal (now amended).
Carroll v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime [2015] ICR 835 (EAT), Shah v The Home Office [2024] EAT 21
Application of EAT Rule 37(5) regarding minor errors and extension of time.
Melki v Bouygues E and S Contracting UK Limited [2024] EAT 36
Outcomes
The EAT found the appeal for Claim No. 3320062 of 2019 was instituted in time; the appeal for Claim No. 3335322 of 2018 was out of time.
Following Sud v London Borough of Ealing, the two claims were treated separately. The missing documents for Claim No. 3335322 of 2018 meant that appeal was not properly instituted.
Time was extended for the out-of-time appeal (Claim No. 3335322 of 2018).
The omission of ET1 and ET3 forms was deemed a minor error under Rule 37(5), rectified promptly, and it was considered just to extend time, weighing the balance of justice to both parties. The EAT considered the claimant's explanation for the error and the lack of significant prejudice to the respondent.