Tamina v NHS Professionals

The 42-day time limit for lodging a properly constituted appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is prescriptive. Litigants in person receive appropriate generosity, but no special exemption from compliance. Where an order is appealed, time runs from the date on which the order was sent. A defective notice does not preserve the appeal or extend the time limit. An extension is exceptional and depends on the circumstances during the relevant period, including whether the appellant acted promptly and whether there was an exceptional reason for delay.

The Claimant sought to appeal two interim case management orders made by the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 18 January and 2 February 2010. The Registrar refused to register the Notice of Appeal because it was lodged out of time. The Claimant appealed that refusal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The appeal was properly instituted on 17 March 2010, making it 16 days late in respect of the first order and one day late in respect of the second. The central issue was whether the EAT should exercise its discretion to extend time.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Registrar’s refusal to register the Notice of Appeal was upheld.
2. The relevant period was 42 days. Under EAT rule 3(3)(b), applicable to orders, time ran from the dates on which the orders were sent. The postal rule did not add two further days. Even if the documents were treated as judgments under rule 3(3)(a), the appeals remained out of time.
3. The authorities, including Muschett v London Borough of Hounslow and others, Jurkowska v Hlmad Ltd, Westmoreland v Renault UK Ltd, Bost Logistics Ltd v Mr J Gumbley and Harper & Anor v Hopkins, established that the time limit was prescriptive and that an extension was unusual. There was no special treatment for a litigant in person.
4. The Claimant had received sufficient information by 6 February 2010 to understand that an appeal was the available route. He then waited about three weeks before sending an inadequate notice and a further period before properly instituting the appeal. The material submitted on the 42nd day did not preserve the appeal, and the Claimant had shown no exceptional reason for the delay.
5. The same reasoning applied to the second order, despite the shorter delay. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for further consideration.

• Manchester Employment Tribunal: made interim case management orders on 18 January and 2 February 2010.
• Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal: refused to register the Notice of Appeal because it was out of time.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal from the Registrar’s order and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.