Tijani v London Borough of Lewisham

Applications to extend the time for appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal are approached strictly because the prescribed six-week period is generous. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction on an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal is confined to points of law. Permission requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Where the tribunal has correctly stated the law, made findings open to it on the evidence and applied the law to those findings, an applicant who identifies no sustainable error of law will not satisfy that threshold.

Mrs Tijani brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal against London Borough of Lewisham, alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal rejected both claims.

Her appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was lodged outside the applicable six-week time limit. Judge Richardson reheard her application for an extension of time, considered the evidence concerning the attempted filing, and refused the extension.

After permission to appeal was refused on the papers, Mrs Tijani renewed her application in the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether she had identified an arguable error of law with a real prospect of success, or any other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard.

1. Renewed application refused. Mrs Tijani had no sustainable ground for appealing the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision.
2. Appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal are subject to a generous six-week time limit. Because that period is generous compared with appellate time limits generally, applications for extensions are approached strictly.
3. Judge Richardson had accurately stated the applicable principles, made findings on the disputed evidence which were open to him, and applied those principles to the facts as found. His refusal to extend time therefore disclosed no error of law.
4. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction on an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal is limited to a point of law. Permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success or there was some other compelling reason for it to be heard. Mrs Tijani identified neither.
5. The court observed that, even if permission had been granted, the appeal would have been bound to fail and could have exposed her to substantial costs. The formal order was that the application be refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division)—renewed application for permission to appeal refused: [2013] EWCA Civ 56.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal—Judge Richardson refused an extension of time for Mrs Tijani’s out-of-time appeal.
3. Employment Tribunal—found that Mrs Tijani had not been unfairly dismissed and that her breach of contract claim was not well-founded.