G Mangwanya v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

The power to extend time for an Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal is discretionary and must be exercised afresh on the facts of the individual case. Earlier authorities do not create rigid sub-rules. The tribunal must assess the explanation for delay, the extent to which ill health caused it, the length of delay and prejudice to the respondent.

A short delay caused principally by disorganisation and human error may lack a good excuse. It does not require an extension. Significant respondent prejudice, including the loss of contemporaneous hearing notes relevant to grounds alleging bias and inadequate reasons, can outweigh the brevity of the delay.

The claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal after a lengthy hearing. Her proposed appeal was due by 4 pm on 6 April 2023. It was submitted at 6.24 pm, with two pages of the ET1 missing, and was therefore treated as instituted one day late.

The Registrar refused an extension of time. On an appeal from that order, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the matter afresh. The claimant relied on her disabilities and on the health conditions of her solicitor son, who had assisted with the attempted submission. The respondent had destroyed most of its contemporaneous hearing notes before learning of the appeal.

The central issue was whether a two-hour-and-24-minute delay should be excused.

1. The appeal from the Registrar's order was refused. Although the delay was only two hours and 24 minutes in substance, the claimant had not shown a good excuse for submitting the appeal late.

2. Rule 37(1) of the EAT Rules confers a broad discretion. The tribunal may enforce appeal time limits strictly, but authorities must not fetter the exercise of discretion. The decision requires a close assessment of the circumstances of the particular case.

3. The claimant's and her son's medical conditions made submission more difficult. They did not substantially cause the default. The predominant causes were late organisation, unclear responsibility for submission, and human error. The position therefore differed from one in which mental ill health wholly or substantially causes the failure to institute an appeal, where justice will usually favour an extension.

4. The judge accepted that an honest mistake and a short delay can be relevant factors. They do not confer an entitlement to relief. The respondent was significantly prejudiced because, before it knew of the appeal, it had disposed of its verbatim notes of the Employment Tribunal hearing. That prejudice was especially material given the extensive challenges to the tribunal's reasons and the allegation of apparent bias.

5. For completeness, the judge considered that, had the notice of appeal been timely, the omission of two pages of the ET1 would have been a minor error capable of being forgiven under rule 37(5). That conclusion was not necessary to the decision. The judge also doubted that the proposed substantive appeal was arguable.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal from the Registrar's refusal to extend time was refused in [2025] EAT 175.
• Employment Tribunal: the claimant's Equality Act 2010 complaints were dismissed by a judgment sent to the parties on 23 February 2023.