Appeal partially allowed with extension of time being allowed where there was an oversight in submitting documents but not allowed for another which was over a year out of time.

The claimant was employed by the respondent as an HR Adviser from April 2017 until September 2021. The claimant brought two claims. The first related to race discrimination in May 2020 and the second related to unfair dismissal in March 2021. The second claim was struck out in April 2023 with the judgment sent in June 2023. The first claim was heard between 11-20 September 2023. On 19th September the case was dismissed and on 20th a costs application was heard with a sum of £20,000 being granted to the respondent.

The deadline to appeal the strike out was 19th October 2023. The claimant submitted this on 20th October but failed to attach the strike out judgment as required by the rules.The administration office informed the claimant of this and it was duly sent on 24th October 2023. As this was out of time, it was initially refused and the claimant appealed.

The claimant issued a further appeal against the costs judgment in the first claim in February 2025. This was some 461 days out of time. This was refused initially and the claimant appealed.

The claimant was able to rely upon medical notes relating to her severe anxiety and mental ill health.  This was taken into account in terms of whether time should be extended.  For the first, the EAT found that the failure to supply the judgment was a minor error and that, in the circumstances, an extension would be granted. It was quickly remedied when mentioned and no prejudice was caused to the respondent.

As for the second, the Tribunal noted that an appeal could be granted within time against the liability judgment.   The EAT did note that should the appeal succeed on the liability grounds, then it may allow for the costs to be reconsidered from the first instance, but that the appeal relating to the costs judgment could not be allowed considering the delay as well as the fact that the claimant was able to submit other substantive appeals within time.

A case on time limits which demonstrates the considerations that the Tribunal takes into account and the different outcomes it can give. The first was an oversight, remedied quickly, and backed up with medical evidence. The second was lengthy, would have a greater impact on the respondent in defending the appeal and the medical evidence did not have such a counterweight.  As a result, the first was allowed but the second was not.   In seeking an extension of time thought should be given to the effect it has on the other side to the proceedings and the extent to which they would be prejudiced – it is an important point that would be taken into account by the Tribunal.

You can read the case in full here.