Griffin v Buckinghamshire County Council

An extension of time for appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is an exceptional indulgence. A party has no entitlement or reasonable expectation of receiving it, even where the delay is short or has caused no prejudice. The court should consider the length of the delay and whether a reason justifies departure from the prescribed limit.

On an appeal concerning an extension of time, the merits should not normally be examined in detail. They may be considered where the proposed appeal is plainly virtually unanswerable. An Employment Tribunal is not required to correct an appellant’s procedural errors or transmit an appeal lodged at the wrong address.

Mr Griffin, a part-time music teacher employed by Buckinghamshire County Council, was selected for redundancy. An employment tribunal dismissed his complaint of unfair selection.

He sought to challenge that decision, but his correspondence was treated as an application for review and his notice of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was lodged 109 days out of time. The EAT Registrar refused an extension, and the President of the EAT dismissed his appeal.

Mr Griffin applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether there was a real prospect of successfully challenging the refusal to extend time, or another compelling reason for the appeal to proceed.

1. Application refused. The applicant had no real prospect of succeeding on an appeal from the EAT President’s order, and no other compelling reason justified allowing the appeal to proceed.

2. On an application concerning an extension of time for an EAT appeal, it is generally inappropriate to investigate the merits in detail. The exception is a rare case in which the proposed appeal is plainly virtually unanswerable.

3. The approach to delay is strict. In industrial cases, an extension of time is an exceptional relief or indulgence. The defaulting party is not entitled to an extension and has no reasonable or legitimate expectation of receiving one. The EAT must consider the length of the delay, and even a short delay may justify refusal where no sufficient reason for departure from the rules is shown. The court referred to Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company [2000] IRLR 111, which approved the guidance in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65, and to Duke v Prospect Training Services Ltd [1989] IRLR 196, where a one-day delay was sufficient.

4. The 109-day delay was substantial. The Employment Tribunal had limited jurisdiction to review its own decision and was not required to remedy the applicant’s failure to lodge the appeal documents with the EAT. His letter was properly treated as a review request, and his later letter was plainly out of time when treated as a notice of appeal.

5. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction was limited to appeals from the EAT. It could not determine the fairness of the redundancy dismissal unless the EAT appeal was first brought within time or time was extended.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal refused.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The President, Lindsay J, dismissed the appeal from the Registrar’s refusal to extend time.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal Registrar: Refused an extension of time for presenting the notice of appeal.
• Employment Tribunal, Reading: Dismissed the complaint that the applicant had been unfairly selected for redundancy.