Parkinson & Anor v Lancashire Mind Ltd

An Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal must be properly instituted within the prescribed time. A notice lodged shortly before the deadline is defective where required supporting documents are missing, and later completion after expiry does not ordinarily cure the defect.

The appellate judge may hear live evidence and reach an independent conclusion on the facts when reviewing a Registrar’s refusal to accept an appeal. Self-represented litigants remain subject to the EAT’s strict procedural requirements. The judge may also consider the apparent merits of the proposed appeal, but a lack of any arguable error of law provides an additional basis for dismissal.

The Claimants appealed against the Registrar’s refusal to accept their Notices of Appeal from an Employment Tribunal judgment dismissing their unfair-dismissal claims. The judgment had been sent on 15 April 2011. The Notices were lodged on 25 May, before the 42-day deadline, but the Claimants omitted the ET3 documents and supplied incomplete written reasons, including a missing page.

The omitted documents were provided only after the deadline, and the Registrar concluded that the appeals had not been properly instituted in time. The Claimants appealed against that decision. The central issues were whether the appeals were out of time and whether time should be extended.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Registrar had correctly concluded that the Notices of Appeal were not properly instituted within the applicable 42-day period. The EAT Rules and practice direction required the Notice of Appeal and prescribed supporting documents to be lodged within that period. Those requirements were prescriptive.
2. On an appeal from a Registrar’s decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal judge may hear live evidence and reach an independent conclusion on the facts. Here, the Claimants supplied no material capable of undermining the Registrar’s chronology or findings.
3. The omission of the ET3 documents and the incomplete written reasons were material defects, rather than mere formalities. The documents were provided after the time limit, and the Claimants had left insufficient time to correct the omissions.
4. The judge found no reason to exercise discretion in the Claimants’ favour. The fact that they were acting in person did not displace the strict procedural requirements.
5. In addition, applying the approach in Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1479, the judge considered the apparent merits of the proposed appeal. The Employment Tribunal’s thorough judgment disclosed no issue of law, and the appeal had no merit. It would therefore also have been dismissed on a rule 3 sift.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The Registrar refused to accept the Notices of Appeal as out of time because they were not properly instituted within the 42-day period. The appeal against that order was dismissed.
• Employment Tribunal: The unfair-dismissal claims were dismissed. By consent, a breach-of-contract claim was allowed and £70 damages were awarded.