Nalamolu v South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

An appellant seeking an extension of time for an appeal from a Registrar’s order must provide a good reason for the whole delay. The EAT’s time limits and document requirements are strict. Their relative length places responsibility on an appellant to act promptly and to check that an appeal has been properly instituted.

A claimed failure to receive procedural guidance will not excuse delay where the appellant was repeatedly directed to it and had practical means of obtaining it. Pursuing judicial review did not justify failing to use the specified five-working-day appeal procedure. The merits of an underlying appeal will generally carry little weight, although an extension should not revive a hopeless appeal.

The Claimant’s Employment Tribunal claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deductions had largely been dismissed. His proposed appeal from that judgment was not properly instituted until 35 days after the time limit, because the necessary documents had not accompanied the notice of appeal.

The Registrar refused an extension on 4 April 2011. Rather than appeal that order within five working days, the Claimant pursued judicial review and later sought to appeal the Registrar’s order 144 days late. The Registrar refused a further extension on 25 October 2011. The Claimant appealed that second refusal to the EAT.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Registrar correctly refused to extend time for the Claimant to appeal her order of 4 April 2011. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the proposed appeal from her earlier refusal to extend time for the underlying Employment Tribunal appeal.

2. The applicable EAT practice is strict. An appellant bears responsibility for lodging a properly constituted appeal within the prescribed period. The time limits are comparatively long, and an appellant who leaves compliance until the last moment bears the consequences of a failure to ensure that all required material has arrived.

3. The Claimant had not shown a good reason for the 144-day delay. His evidence that he had not received the Practice Direction was rejected. He had been told on several occasions where the relevant provisions could be found, had internet access and could have sought advice or contacted the EAT. Even if he had not initially received the document, he had ample means and opportunity to obtain it.

4. The judicial-review application was misconceived as an explanation for not using the EAT appeal route. The Claimant knew that proceedings could be pursued through different channels, but there was no reason not to appeal the Registrar’s order in time. Waiting a further month after the Administrative Court’s refusal also remained unexplained.

5. Underlying merits were ordinarily of little relevance. Nevertheless, applying Aziz, the EAT considered that no life should be given to a hopeless appeal. The appeal from the Registrar’s first order appeared to have no merit, reinforcing the conclusion that the second appeal could not succeed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed from the Registrar’s order of 25 October 2011 refusing an extension of time to appeal her order of 4 April 2011.
• Employment Tribunal, London South: the Claimant’s principal dismissal-related claims were dismissed; a limited unlawful-deductions claim succeeded. The written reasons were sent on 29 October 2010.