Lister v American Institute For Foreign Study (UK) Ltd & Anor

An Employment Appeal Tribunal notice of appeal must be lodged with all required documents within the prescribed six-week period. The period applies equally to litigants in person and represented parties. A party who files at the last moment assumes the risk that an omission cannot be corrected in time.

An extension is exceptional. A simple, unexplained error in omitting a judgment does not justify one, particularly where the appellant had the judgment and sufficient time to comply. The merits may also be considered, but normally carry little weight; an appeal with no merit should not be revived by an extension.

The claimant appealed against the Registrar's refusal to extend by seven days the time for registering her Employment Appeal Tribunal notice of appeal.

Her underlying Employment Tribunal claim had been struck out after she admitted forging material said to be from a potential witness. The Tribunal also ordered her to pay the respondents' costs. Although she delivered a notice of appeal on the final day of the six-week period, it did not include the Employment Tribunal judgment. The missing judgment was supplied seven days later.

The central issue was whether the Registrar should have extended time despite the incomplete notice and the claimant's explanations for the omission.

1. Appeal dismissed. The notice of appeal was not properly instituted until the missing judgment was delivered, seven days after expiry of the time limit.

2. The claimant had the judgment and reasons by 29 November 2011. She had ample time to lodge a compliant appeal, had consulted counsel, and understood the difference between the judgment and reasons. The Tribunal rejected her account that she had previously lodged the judgment, finding it incredible and misleading.

3. The applicable practice required all documents to accompany the notice of appeal. The six-week period was generous, but did not excuse a litigant who waited until the final day and made a correctable error too late for it to be remedied. Self-representation did not excuse the omission.

4. Further and independently, the appeal against the strike-out had no merit. The claimant's admitted fabrication of evidence meant that a fair trial was impossible. The Employment Tribunal had correctly exercised its strike-out power under rule 18(7), having recognised the gravity of that remedy.

5. The respondents were awarded their costs of the hearing under rule 34. The appeal was misconceived and unreasonably pursued. The amount, said to be about £4,000, was to be assessed in detail.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the claimant's appeal from the Registrar's order refusing an extension of time.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal Registrar: on 13 March 2012 refused to extend by seven days the time for registering the notice of appeal.
• Employment Tribunal: struck out the claimant's claims and made a costs order; its judgment was sent on 15 September 2011 and reasons on 24 November 2011. A review application was rejected in a judgment sent on 25 January 2012.