Claudio Costagliola Di Fiore & Anor v Introhive UK Limited
[2023] EAT 139
Margaret Gallacher v T&C Bars Limited & Anor
6 December 2023
[2024] EAT 15
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Someone was late appealing an employment tribunal decision by almost a year. The court said they didn't have a good excuse for the delay, even though they claimed they didn't have all the paperwork and misunderstood a letter. Because of the delay, their appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Registrar's order refusing extension of time to lodge an appeal (412 days late).
- •Appellant (Gallagher) was found liable in the Employment Tribunal (ET) for redundancy, notice, and holiday pay.
- •ET judgment sent on February 1, 2022; appeal deadline was March 15, 2022.
- •Appellant contacted the ET in February 2022 to complain, but didn't file an appeal with the EAT until March 2023.
- •Missing documents (ET1 and ET3) were eventually submitted in May 2023.
- •Appellant argued she lacked copies of ET1 and ET3, and misunderstood the ET's July 2021 letter as dismissing her from the proceedings.
- •The EAT considered the appellant's explanation for the delay insufficient.
Legal Principles
Appeals from the Registrar's refusal to extend time require a fresh decision by the EAT Judge on whether to extend time, not a review of the Registrar's decision.
Muschett v London Borough of Hounslow [2009] ICR 424
To extend time, the EAT considers: (1) explanation for default; (2) whether it's a good explanation; (3) whether exceptional circumstances justify extension.
United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and anor [1995] ICR 65; Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd [2000] IRLR 111 CA
Explanation must cover the entire period of delay.
Muschett paragraph 5(vi)
Ignorance of time limits is no excuse, even for unrepresented parties.
Abdelghafar at p 71C-D
Extensions are granted only in rare and exceptional cases; compliance with time limits is fundamental.
Griffiths and Griffiths v Cetin UKEATPA/1150/19 and UKEATPA/1151/19
Merits of the underlying appeal are rarely relevant to extending time.
Griffiths and Griffiths v Cetin UKEATPA/1150/19 and UKEATPA/1151/19
Outcomes
EAT refused the application to extend time.
Appellant provided no good explanation for the 412-day delay. The delay was not excused by lack of documents or misunderstanding of the ET's letter. The merits of the underlying claim were not relevant.
Appeal dismissed.
The application to extend time having been refused, the appeal was dismissed.