Martin v Fujitsu Services (Engineering Services) Ltd

A court may reconsider dismissal for procedural non-compliance where personal circumstances materially affected the litigant’s ability to comply. Relief remains discretionary. Repeated missed deadlines, previous extensions and warnings may justify a strict condition. Where an appellant produces most of the required bundle at the hearing, dismissal may be set aside only if the outstanding documents and pagination are completed by the specified deadline under the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction supplementing Part 52.

This was a reconsideration of a dismissal order made on 19 February 2016 after an appellant failed to file the required appeal bundle within successive extended deadlines. The appellant was unrepresented and relied on responsibility for supporting ill or disabled people, theft of bank-card details, burglary and subsequent injuries. At the hearing, he produced a bundle which lacked a skeleton argument and index and required pagination. The central issue was whether the dismissal should be set aside and, if so, on what conditions.

The court reconsidered the dismissal order made for failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction supplementing Part 52.

1. Relevant circumstances. The appellant had missed the original deadline and two extended deadlines. He had been warned that any further extension was unlikely and was given a final deadline before dismissal. Master Meacher accepted that the appellant had experienced a distressing period, including substantial facial injuries, and that this affected his ability to prepare the bundle.
2. Conditional relief. The appellant had produced at the hearing what appeared to be all or nearly all required documents, but the bundle still lacked a skeleton argument and an index and needed proper pagination. The court was therefore willing to set aside the dismissal order only if a fully compliant bundle, including those documents and an index accurately reflecting the pagination, was filed by 4.00 pm that day.
3. Consequence of non-compliance. If the appellant failed to satisfy that condition, the dismissal order would stand.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On reconsideration, Master Meacher conditionally set aside the dismissal order dated 19 February 2016, subject to filing a fully compliant appeal bundle by 4.00 pm on the hearing date. The judgment is reported at [2016] EWCA Civ 380.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The matter came to the Court of Appeal on appeal from an EAT judgment sent to the appellant on 14 October 2015. No citation for that judgment was stated in the judgment.