F Amedzo v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited
[2024] EAT 148
M Shah v Home Office
19 January 2024
[2024] EAT 21
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Someone missed a deadline to appeal a tribunal decision because the rules were unclear. Even though it was their fault, the judge gave them extra time because the rules were confusing and the court was slow to process appeals. The judge explained the appeal was mostly correct, just missing some paperwork.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Mohammed Shah appealed an employment tribunal judgment concerning eight separate claims, initially focusing his appeal on only one.
- •His appeal was initially deemed improperly instituted due to the omission of ET1s and ET3s for the other seven claims.
- •He sought an extension of time to rectify this, which was initially refused by the Registrar.
- •The appeal to the EAT concerned the Registrar's refusal to grant an extension of time.
- •The appellant's representative admitted the error but argued for exceptional circumstances due to inconsistencies in the rules and guidance.
- •The appeal was submitted on the last day of the 42-day time limit, and the additional documents were provided much later.
- •The EAT Rules were subsequently amended to reduce the required documentation for appeals.
Legal Principles
Time limits for appealing employment tribunal decisions should be observed; extensions are granted only in rare and exceptional cases with a justifiable reason.
United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65
Ignorance of the rules, errors, oversights, or carelessness are not usually acceptable excuses for missing deadlines.
Anghel v Middlesex University [2022] EAT 176
Consolidated claims are treated as a single claim for the purpose of appeals.
Sud v London Borough of Ealing [2011] EWCA Civ 995
The EAT Rules 1993, specifically rule 3(1)(b) (as it existed at the relevant time), required the inclusion of all claim and response documents from the employment tribunal proceedings, regardless of whether each claim was individually appealed.
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, Rule 3(1)(b)
Outcomes
The EAT allowed the appeal against the Registrar’s decision.
While the appellant didn't have a 'good excuse' for missing the deadline, exceptional circumstances existed due to inconsistencies and confusion in the rules and guidance materials. The default was considered minor and technical, and the subsequent amendment to the rules supported this view. The significant delay in the EAT Registry processing appeals was also a factor.
An extension of time was granted.
The EAT found that the requirements were confusing and inconsistent, the error was minor, and the delay in the EAT's processing meant a quicker appeal would not have prevented the missed deadline.