Gavin v. Commission For Racial Equality

An Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal must be lodged within the prescribed time and accompanied by properly particularised grounds and supporting documents. The time limit is not extended merely because an appellant is unrepresented, seeks legal advice, misunderstands the applicable period, or leaves filing until the last moment. Discretion to admit an out-of-time appeal is exceptional and requires a proper explanation for the delay, considered with the merits and prejudice. A wholly hopeless appeal should not be revived where doing so would prolong a stale dispute. Each Employment Tribunal judgment attracts its own appeal period; an intended cross-appeal does not alter that position once the other party’s appeal has been withdrawn.

Three appeals under rule 21 challenged Registrar’s refusals to register Notices of Appeal. They arose from separate Employment Tribunal proceedings involving Ms Gavin, Mrs Shaw, and Mr Kapoor. Each proposed appeal was lodged out of time, by periods ranging from 32 to 239 days.

The Tribunal heard the appeals together because they raised common questions concerning EAT practice and extensions of time, while considering their different factual circumstances. The central issues were whether the Notices of Appeal complied with the applicable requirements and whether exceptional circumstances justified exercising discretion to admit them.

1. Appeals dismissed. All three appeals against the Registrar’s orders were dismissed. No exceptional grounds justified extending time.
2. The EAT Rules and Practice Direction require a Notice of Appeal and prescribed supporting documents to be lodged within 42 days of the reasons being sent. The grounds must clearly identify the points of law relied upon and the order sought. A party cannot reserve a right to amend, alter or add to the Notice; any application to amend must be made as soon as practicable and accompanied by a draft.
3. The approach in Muschett v London Borough of Hounslow and others was applied to the common hearing and the relevant EAT practice. The later authorities, including Jurkowska v Hlmad Ltd and Harper v Hopkins, confirmed the strict approach to time limits and filing requirements.
4. Mr Kapoor knew early that he intended to appeal, but filed 32 days late and failed to verify that his email had been received. His proposed appeal had only marginal merits, and the circumstances did not warrant discretion.
5. Ms Gavin’s grounds were inadequate. They did not properly identify the alleged natural-justice complaint or explain why the strike-out should not have occurred. The appeal was also hopeless within the principle in Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Ltd, so it was not in the interests of justice to prolong the stale dispute.
6. Mrs Shaw’s appeals were 239 and 99 days late. Her explanations concerning non-receipt, miscommunication and competing business priorities did not adequately account for the delay. The Registrar’s decision was correct.

• Employment Tribunal: Separate Employment Tribunal decisions gave rise to the proposed appeals. The judgment does not state their citations.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The Registrar refused to register the Notices of Appeal because they were out of time and, in Ms Gavin’s case, inadequately particularised. The EAT dismissed all three appeals.