Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Time not extended for an appeal even though it was only 2 hours late – no good reason given and prejudice to the respondent present.
The claimant wished to appeal the decision made by the Employment Tribunal. The deadline to appeal was 4pm on 6th April 2023. The appeal, however, was submitted at 6.24pm on 6th April 2023. This was treated as being received on 7th April and was therefore one day out of time. The issue was whether the EAT would accept the late appeal.
The claimant and her son outlined a series of issues about being able to make the claim on the 6th April such as those relating to the online system, a back and forth in terms of finalising the appeal documentation and the son being ‘indisposed’ for a period on the day. They had instructed counsel but this was done very late. The Tribunal outlined that it was their failure to submit the appeal within the generous time limit and it was due to poor organisation rather than any other extenuating circumstance. There was a significant amount of time before the respondent was informed of the appeal and in October 2023, without being aware of the appeal, they disposed of its verbatim notes from the hearing.
The EAT held that they have adopted a relatively strict approach emanating from the judgment of Mummery J, as he then was, in UAE v Abdelghafar when they required a ‘full and honest explanation for the delay’ and whether they will justify any extension. The EAT held that any delay, no matter how short, is not the fault of the respondent so any prejudice to them would have to be taken into account. The EAT did not accept that there was a good excuse for the delay – it was largely disorganisation and human error. As a result, the extension of time was not allowed.
This demonstrates the heightened threshold for having time extended when it comes to an appeal. This is important in ensuring the finality to proceedings, fairness to the respondent and is cognisant that the claimant would be aware of the proceedings having already been involved in a decision at the lower level. Even though the delay was very short there was still significant prejudice to the respondent having dispensed of their notes and there was no good reason given by the claimant.
You can read the case in full here
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial