Singh-Rathour & Anor v Taylor & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Time for appealing)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal may extend the 42-day time limit for appealing in exceptional circumstances. Relevant considerations include the appellant’s explanation for delay, promptness once the right of appeal or correct procedure becomes known, reliance on misleading or incomplete assistance, and the nature of any procedural omission. The prescribed documents remain required, and litigants in person receive no special exemption. However, a genuine, reasonable and cogent explanation for an omission may justify allowing an appeal to proceed. An ET3 need not be included for a respondent dismissed from the proceedings, while omission of relevant ET3s for remaining respondents may be excused where the explanation is reasonable.

Two appeals were brought against Registrar’s decisions refusing to register Notices of Appeal as out of time.

In Mrs Hancocks’s case, the Notice of Appeal was six days late. She and her husband had not been told by their solicitors about the right of appeal or supplied with the Judgment booklet. They contacted the Employment Tribunal within the 42-day period and reasonably relied on assurances that the matter was being actioned.

In the Singh-Rathour appeal, the Notice was lodged three days out of time because ET3s had been omitted. One respondent had been dismissed from the proceedings; the other two were respondents against whom costs orders had been made.

1. Both appeals allowed. The Notices of Appeal were treated as validly instituted despite being lodged out of time or initially incomplete.
2. The 42-day period is generous and the procedural requirements are prescriptive. There is no special treatment for litigants in person. Nevertheless, the discretion to extend time must be exercised judicially and may be used in exceptional cases.
3. In Mrs Hancocks’s case, the combination of severe family ill health, ignorance of the right of appeal and deadline, the solicitors’ failure to provide the Judgment booklet or advice, and reasonable reliance on the Employment Tribunal’s assurances justified an extension. Once directed to the EAT, the appellant acted promptly.
4. In the Singh-Rathour appeal, the appellant knew of the deadline and acted promptly after obtaining advice, although close to expiry. Omitting the ET3 of a respondent dismissed from the proceedings was not an error requiring explanation. The ET3s of the other respondents were relevant and should have been filed, but the appellant’s truthful explanation was cogent and reasonable: the costs liability under appeal concerned him principally, and the other respondents’ liabilities did not affect it.
5. The merits may be relevant where an appeal has no merit at all. Although the first appeal was considered meritless, it was allowed to proceed and the parties were invited to consider the next stage under Rule 3.

• Registrar: refused to register the Notices of Appeal because they were out of time or procedurally incomplete.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed both appeals and held that the Notices of Appeal were validly instituted.