Barrett v Dickson Manchester & Co Ltd

Employment appeal time limits are treated as important. A claimant cannot extend the time for appealing by failing to request extended reasons within the prescribed period. Where an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is substantially out of time, the tribunal must consider the extent of the default, the explanation for it and whether exceptional circumstances justify an extension. A refusal to extend time will not be disturbed where the tribunal applied the correct approach and there is no arguable error of law. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success and no compelling reason justifies allowing it to proceed.

The applicant claimed unfair dismissal against his former employer. The Employment Tribunal held that the claim was out of time under section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore had no jurisdiction.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to extend time for appealing against that decision. It found the delay to be substantial, the explanation inadequate and no exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify an extension. It also dismissed related challenges concerning the refusal of extended written reasons.

The applicant sought permission from the Court of Appeal, alleging procedural errors, factual mistakes, discrimination and unfair treatment.

1. Application dismissed. None of the proposed grounds had any real prospect of success, and the complaints advanced did not constitute compelling reasons for allowing an appeal to proceed.
2. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to treat the employer’s letter, when received, as communicating termination of the employment. The resulting claim was subject to the three-month limitation period in section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On the Tribunal’s findings, the claim was substantially out of time.
3. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had applied the correct approach to the application for an extension of time. The relevant considerations included the length of the default, the explanation for it and whether circumstances justified the exceptional course of extending time. Its conclusion that the explanation was inadequate disclosed no arguable error of law.
4. A failure to request extended written reasons within the applicable period did not prevent time for appealing from running. It would be wrong to allow an applicant’s own default to extend an employment appeal time limit.
5. The decision in William Hill Organisation Ltd v Gavas [1990] IRLR 488 did not assist the applicant. It concerned the EAT’s discretionary power to dispense with a failure to provide extended reasons and did not establish that appeal time could be postponed indefinitely.
6. The applicant’s complaints about discrimination and human rights were outside the case presented to the Employment Tribunal and, in any event, did not provide a compelling reason for permitting a hopeless appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal refused and the application dismissed: [2002] EWCA Civ 574.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal — Appeal dismissed and extension of time refused.
3. Employment Tribunal — Unfair-dismissal claim held out of time under section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.