Huxley v 1) Eco-Eye Ltd 2) Mr T Pumphrey: EA-2019-001043-AT
Judgment concerning an appeal against a registrar’s order which granted an extension of time to a Claimant. The extension had been granted to allow the Claimants to appeal a decision despite their failure to comply with the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Directions.
A claim form submitted by the Claimant was deemed to have been submitted out of time in an oral hearing before the Employment Tribunal (ET). The Claimant failed to request written reasons for the judgment within 14 days of the judgment as stipulated as necessary at both the end of the judgment and in accordance with the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Directions. The Claimant sought an appeal from the EAT but failed to detail why he had not requested written reasons within the required timeframe. Such a request was then made by the Claimant outwith the timeframe required for an appeal to be submitted. This request was refused by the ET. It was, however, treated as the Claimant’s explanation for why he had not provided written reasons for the judgment with the appeal, and it was determined that a time extension could be granted for a proper appeal to take place. This was appealed by the Respondent.
The EAT allowed the Respondent’s appeal on the basis that there was “no good, let alone exceptional, reasons for departing from the normal approach to time limits in the EAT.” The Claimant had not complied with the EAT Practice Directions by failing to provide an explanation for why he had not supplied reasons for the ET judgment within the time limit, and by not making a written application to the EAT asking for an appeal be heard to request written reasons from the ET or, alternatively, despite the absence of such reasons.