Z Chowdhury v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

An appeal from an Employment Tribunal case-management order requires the written record of the order; written reasons are required only if available. The 42-day period runs from the sending of that written record, rather than from the oral pronouncement of the order.

Where no written record has been supplied, but written reasons sufficiently identify and explain the order, the Employment Appeal Tribunal may use its waiver power under the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 to permit the appeal to proceed. Alternatively, it may extend time where the appellant acted promptly and had a reasonable explanation for a short delay.

The claimant sought to appeal case-management orders made orally by an Employment Tribunal during a final hearing which was then postponed because she was unwell. No written record of those orders was sent after the hearing, although written reasons were later provided.

Her initial appeal referred to her requests for written reasons. After receiving an Employment Appeal Tribunal letter about proper institution, she misunderstood it as extending the time for her to provide the necessary material. Her revised notice of appeal and the written reasons were treated as received nine days after the Registrar considered the 42-day time limit had expired.

The Registrar refused an extension of time. The central issue was whether the appeal could proceed despite the absence of a formal written record of the orders and the apparent short delay.

1. Appeal allowed. The appeal from the Registrar’s order was a rehearing and was determined afresh. The revised notice of appeal could proceed and would be sifted in the usual way.

2. Under Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, a decision concerning the conduct of proceedings is a case-management order rather than a judgment. Where such an order is announced at a hearing, the Tribunal should provide a written record as soon as practicable. Written reasons may also be given, but are distinct from that record.

3. For an appeal from an order, rule 3(1)(e) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 requires the written record of the order, while reasons need be supplied only if available. The 42-day period runs from the date on which that record is sent to the parties, applying Ameyaw. A notice lodged before the relevant written decision is sent is not invalid merely because it is premature, as explained in Elhalabi.

4. No formal written record of the orders had been produced. The later written reasons nevertheless explained the orders and their basis. It was therefore appropriate to exercise the rule 39 waiver power and allow the appeal to proceed on the revised notice received on 2 October 2024.

5. Alternatively, if the written reasons were treated as the written record, an extension would have been granted. The claimant had sought to appeal at the earliest opportunity and reasonably misunderstood the correspondence. Although time limits are applied strictly, the discretion remains fact-sensitive.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal from the Registrar’s order was allowed: [2026] EAT 69.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal Registrar: By an order sealed on 9 June 2025, the Registrar treated the revised appeal as nine days late and refused an extension of time.
• Employment Tribunal: Oral case-management orders were made during a final hearing held from 17 to 19 June 2024. The hearing was postponed, and written reasons were later sent without a formal written record of the orders.