Laydoe v Thistle Hotels Plc

An application to review an Employment Tribunal decision does not extend or restart the time for appealing that decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Where the applicable rules and notice clearly state the time limit, reliance on incorrect advice, difficulty finding a solicitor, or dissatisfaction with the merits will not ordinarily justify a substantial extension. A statement that the matter may more appropriately be pursued by appeal is not misleading about the time limit where the surrounding documents make the position clear. Time limits are enforced in the public interest, and an extension requires a sufficient reason.

Laydoe v Thistle Hotels Plc arose from employment claims brought by a painter and decorator/handyman. The Employment Tribunal rejected the race-discrimination claim but found unfair dismissal, with a 100 per cent contribution by the claimant and no compensation awarded.

The Tribunal’s extended reasons were sent on 16 November 1999, beginning the 42-day appeal period. The claimant sought a review, which was refused; the refusal and accompanying notice were sent on 21 December and stated that the review application had not extended the appeal time. His appeal was lodged 35 days late. The Employment Appeal Tribunal registrar refused an extension, and His Honour Judge Peter Clark upheld that decision. The central issue was whether the delay justified extending time.

1. Lord Justice Pill refused permission to appeal and agreed with the reasoning of His Honour Judge Peter Clark.

2. The 42-day period ran from the date on which the Employment Tribunal’s extended reasons were sent. The claimant’s application for review did not extend that period. The formal notice accompanying the refusal of review expressly stated that it had not done so.

3. The claimant’s submission that the Tribunal chairman had misled him was rejected. The statement that the matter would more appropriately form the basis of an appeal did not mislead him about the time limit, particularly in light of the clear rules and notice.

4. The claimant had received the refusal of review while still within time and could have lodged an appeal then. His reliance on advice from the Paddington Citizens Advice Bureau, his difficulty in obtaining legal representation, and his strong views about the original decision were insufficient grounds for extending time by 35 days.

5. Time limits are enforced in the public interest. No sufficient reason for the requested extension had been shown. The application for permission to appeal was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 15 February 2001, Lord Justice Pill refused permission to appeal.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The registrar refused to extend time for the claimant’s 35-day late appeal. His Honour Judge Peter Clark upheld that decision.
• Employment Tribunal: The Tribunal rejected the race-discrimination claim, found unfair dismissal, and made no compensation order because of the claimant’s 100 per cent contribution.