Rehman v T Class Security Ltd

An extension of time for filing an appellant’s notice in the Employment Appeal Tribunal is discretionary. A short delay does not, by itself, justify an extension. The applicant must provide a full, honest and consistent explanation together with a sustainable excuse. Time runs from the date on which the Employment Tribunal’s reasons are sent, rather than received. Requests for a review or for judicial notes do not suspend the appeal period. The Court of Appeal has limited power to interfere with a discretionary decision: intervention requires an incorrect legal approach, reliance on an irrelevant matter, or failure to consider a relevant matter. Illness does not require an indefinite adjournment; medical evidence must establish an inability to present the case.

The appellant had been employed by the respondent as a security guard and brought Employment Tribunal claims including unfair dismissal, direct racial discrimination, harassment and non-payment of compensation. The substantive claims were dismissed on 2 October 2013.

The appellant’s appellant’s notice to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was filed two days late. The EAT registrar refused an extension of time, and His Honour Judge David Richardson dismissed the appeal against that refusal on 3 June 2014. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused on paper, and the appellant renewed his application orally.

The central issues were whether the EAT had applied the correct principles when refusing an extension, whether the appellant’s explanations justified the delay, and whether his health justified a further adjournment.

Application dismissed. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The appellant had shown no real prospect of success, and the merits of the original Employment Tribunal decision were not considered.

1. The EAT’s approach was correct. The 42-day period for filing an appellant’s notice is expected to be observed, and an extension under rule 3(3)(a)(i) requires a full, honest and open explanation for the delay together with a good and sustainable excuse. A delay of only two days is not sufficient by itself.
2. Time ran from the date on which the Employment Tribunal’s reasons were sent, namely 2 October 2013, so the deadline was 13 November. The appellant’s inconsistent accounts about the deadline undermined his application. His legal advice, lack of procedural knowledge, health problems, request for a review and request for the judge’s notes did not provide a satisfactory explanation or excuse. His health had not prevented him from writing, emailing or communicating with the EAT.
3. The Court could interfere with the EAT’s exercise of discretion only if it had acted on the wrong legal basis, taken account of an irrelevant matter, or failed to take account of a relevant matter. No such error was alleged or established.
4. The appellant was not entitled to dictate that the hearing be adjourned because he felt unwell. An adjournment requires medical certification that the litigant is physically or mentally unable to present the case, and any adjournment must remain limited and consistent with justice and the overriding objective.
5. The renewed application was therefore dismissed. The appellant was told that no further renewal to the Supreme Court or another court was available.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused on paper, and the renewed oral application was dismissed. The court held that the EAT had applied the correct principles and that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The judgment is reported at [2015] EWCA Civ 981.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal against the registrar’s refusal to extend time was dismissed on 3 June 2014.
• Employment Tribunal: The substantive claims were dismissed on 2 October 2013.