Olanrewaju Sanni v Reed Specialist Recruitment & Anor

Extending time for a late EAT appeal requires a fact-sensitive assessment of the explanation for default, whether it amounts to a good excuse and, if not, whether other circumstances warrant an extension. The discretion must be exercised judicially and fairly, with regard to finality. A pending reconsideration application does not stop the 42-day appeal period running from the original decision, and the same period applies to litigants in person. Where ill-health is relied on, it must have materially contributed to the delay; if it did, time will usually be extended, but not invariably. Medical evidence may assist but is not always essential. A short delay or absence of forensic prejudice does not by itself justify an extension.

The appellant applied through Reed Specialist Recruitment, a recruitment agency, for a paralegal role with the Financial Ombudsman Service. He brought discrimination and contract claims against both respondents, then withdrew them. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claims on 20 June 2024 and refused reconsideration on 9 July. The appellant believed the time to appeal would run from the reconsideration decision, but the deadline ran from the original dismissal. He lodged an appeal six days out of time. The Registrar refused an extension on 31 March 2025. The appellant appealed that refusal, relying on ill-health, housing and family pressures, voluntary work and related enquiries. The issue before the EAT was whether to extend time.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Judge Auerbach decided afresh under Rule 37 whether to extend time, taking account of all the evidence and submissions before him, rather than reviewing the Registrar’s reasons.

2. The approach in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65 (EAT), confirmed in Ridley v Kirtley [2024] EWCA Civ 884, requires consideration of the explanation for the default, whether it is a good excuse and, even if it is not, whether other circumstances justify an extension. Although the approach may be strict, it is not inflexible. The discretion must be exercised judicially, evenly and fairly, with regard to the facts of the individual case. Finality is relevant; the absence of particular forensic difficulty for a respondent does not itself justify an extension.

3. A reconsideration application does not stop or restart the 42-day period for appealing an Employment Tribunal decision. Time runs from when the original decision is sent, and the limit applies equally to litigants in person. Here, the appellant’s mistaken belief that time would wait for the reconsideration outcome was not a good excuse: accessible guidance explained the deadline, and the evidence showed that he could have discovered it and appealed in time.

4. Under the guidance in J v K [2019] EWCA Civ 5, the decision-maker considers whether the asserted health problem existed and whether it materially contributed to the delay. If it did, an extension will usually be granted, though not invariably; medical evidence may often be needed but is not an absolute requirement. The judge accepted the appellant’s longstanding mental and physical health problems, but found they had not materially explained the delay. His housing and family circumstances, voluntary work and FCA and ICO enquiries also did not materially explain it.

5. The apparent merits of the proposed appeal are generally irrelevant at this stage, subject to cases where an appeal appears plainly hopeless or obviously compelling. The judge made no assessment of the merits. He found neither a good excuse nor another sufficient reason to extend time.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 8 September 2026, refused to extend time and dismissed the appeal from the Registrar’s order: [2026] EAT 148 .
2. Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 31 March 2025, refused the appellant’s application to extend time for appealing the Employment Tribunal decision.
3. Employment Tribunal: Dismissed the withdrawn claims on 20 June 2024 and refused reconsideration on 9 July 2024. The appellant sought to appeal the dismissal, but lodged his appeal out of time.