R Richardson v Extreme Roofing Limited

An appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is not properly instituted unless the required documents are complete. A copied-and-pasted version of a tribunal judgment is insufficient where it does not enable the EAT to verify that the document is the final, complete and unaltered signed judgment.

An appellant who omits required documents must provide a genuine explanation of why they cannot be supplied. The appellant, including a litigant in person, bears responsibility for complying within the 42-day period. An extension is an indulgence, not a right, and requires a full and honest explanation and a good reason for the default. The EAT and its staff have no duty to identify defects or obtain omitted documents.

The claimant appealed a Registrar’s refusal to extend time for properly instituting two proposed appeals from an employment tribunal judgment sent on 21 August 2020 and a reconsideration judgment sent on 14 September 2020.

The initial notice of appeal did not attach the ET3 response. For the appeal against the first judgment, it also attached copied text in a Word document rather than the judgment and written reasons. The missing material was supplied after the applicable time limits had expired.

Before the hearing, the claimant sought to withdraw the appeal and then attempted to retract that withdrawal. He also failed to prepare an agreed bundle or skeleton argument. The central issues were whether the correspondence created a binding withdrawal agreement, whether the appeals had been properly instituted, and whether time should be extended.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Registrar’s refusal to extend time was upheld. The claimant’s initial notice did not properly institute either appeal, because the ET3 was absent and, for the first appeal, the required judgment and reasons were not supplied.

2. Under rule 3(1) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 and the EAT Practice Direction, the required documents must be complete. A document made by copying text from a judgment into a Word file is not a copy of the judgment and reasons. Without the signed original or an equivalent online version, the EAT cannot verify that it is final, complete and unaltered. The requirement accords with rule 61 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, which requires a judgment to be signed.

3. The claimant’s statements did not amount to a genuine explanation for being unable to provide the documents. They showed that he knew documents were missing and could have supplied them, including by post or by images from his telephone. It was his responsibility to remedy the defects; neither the EAT nor its staff had a duty to identify omissions or obtain the material.

4. Applying Fincham, United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Green v Mears Ltd, the 42-day limit is generous, including for litigants in person. An extension is an indulgence. It requires a full and honest explanation and a good reason, and may be refused even without prejudice to the respondent. No good excuse was established for the 38-day and 14-day delays.

5. The earlier correspondence did not create a binding agreement preventing the claimant from continuing. Under paragraph 17 of the EAT Practice Direction, withdrawal required the EAT’s permission, and no dismissal order had been made before he withdrew his request. Although the claimant had breached procedural directions, striking out under rule 26 was disproportionate; the merits were therefore determined afresh.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal from the Registrar’s order refusing an extension of time to institute two appeals. The EAT dismissed the appeal and upheld that refusal.
• Employment Tribunal: the underlying judgment with written reasons was sent to the parties on 21 August 2020. A reconsideration judgment was sent on 14 September 2020.