Sojirin v National Car Parks Ltd

On an application for permission to appeal against a refusal to extend time, the applicant must show a real prospect that the tribunal erred in law, or another compelling reason for the appeal to proceed. Delay is assessed overall. Delay caused by pursuing misconceived procedures remains attributable to the applicant. A litigant in person must take reasonable steps to progress a claim, including checking communications sent to solicitors who remain on the record. Employment proceedings require prompt action, and even a short delay may defeat a claim. Where delay is substantial and the explanations are not cogent, permission to appeal will be refused.

The applicant complained that his former employer had unfairly dismissed him. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the complaint after neither the applicant nor his solicitors attended the hearing. The applicant later sought a review and appealed out of time against the Tribunal’s decision and the Chairman’s refusal of a review.

He pursued judicial review instead of the available appellate route. The High Court dismissed that application and advised him to seek permission to appeal out of time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ultimately refused extensions of time for the proposed appeals. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was a real prospect that the EAT had erred in refusing an extension, or another compelling reason for the appeal to proceed.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for the appeal to proceed.
2. The Court of Appeal’s task was limited to considering whether the EAT had erred in exercising its discretion to refuse an extension of time. The applicant had to show a real prospect that the EAT’s decision was legally flawed.
3. Delay in employment proceedings must be considered overall. The principal delay was attributable to the applicant’s pursuit of misconceived judicial review proceedings and continued failure to follow advice about the proper appellate route. The delay was substantial and the explanations were not cogent.
4. A litigant in person remains responsible for progressing a case promptly. The applicant had solicitors on the record when notices of the hearing were sent to them. If he did not hear from them, he should have made inquiries of them or the Tribunal. His status did not excuse the delay.
5. The alleged procedural complaints did not disclose a viable appeal. The papers indicated that the solicitors had been notified of the adjourned hearing and the later hearing date. Sedley LJ had given no relevant direction, and the allegation that the EAT was negligent was misconceived.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal dismissed on 25 April 2002.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Refused extensions of time for appeals against the Employment Tribunal’s decision, the Chairman’s refusal of a review, and the Registrar’s refusal to extend time.
• Employment Tribunal: Dismissed the unfair-dismissal complaint and later refused the application for review.