The notice of appeal was served three days late. The Registrar and Morison J refused to extend time, the judge concluding that the explanation for the delay was honest and full, but not acceptable.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘I would only add this in relation to the merits. Mummery J said at p.246 of the United Arab Emirates  IRLR 243 case, that the merits are usually of little weight and they should not be investigated in detail. I agree with that. But I would however say that, if it is plain that the appeal has no prospect of success, that must be a matter which should be taken into account. There can be no point in giving an extension of time for an appeal which is bound to fail.’
Butler-Sloss LJ acknowledged that the Abdelghafar guidelines imposed a more restrictive regime for appealing to the EAT than to the Court of Appeal applied for appeals to itself, but pointed out, first, the distinction between the EAT and the CA, the appellate jurisdiction of the EAT being confined to appeals on law; and, second, that the EAT was empowered under section 30(3) of the 1996 Act to regulate its own procedure and that ‘[i]t has its own good reasons for requiring the parties to deal with proposed appeals expeditiously . . It is right that on appeals on law people must get their cases in in time. In this particular case I agree with Morison J that this is an honest explanation of mistake but it is not an acceptable one.’
Sir Christopher Staughton, Pill, Butler-SlossLJJ
 EWCA Civ 1479,  IRLR 111
England and Wales
Approved – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Another EAT 10-Jul-1995
The appellant challenged a decision by the tribunal made in its absence that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear against it a claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The tribunal had erred. Though Sengupta had been decided under common law, it . .
Appeal from – Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd EAT 3-Dec-1998
Cited – Peters v Sat Katar Co Ltd (in liquidation) CA 20-Jun-2003
The claimant had sent a notice of appeal, but it was lost in the post. He now appealed a refusal of leave to apply out of time.
Held: The EAT should look at the circumstances. Here a litigant in person would not have been alerted to the need . .
Cited – Dolega-Ossowski v Harvey Nichols EAT 20-Mar-2003
The EAT considered applications for leave to appeal out of time from both parties.
Held: ‘the principal issues in the exercise of the jurisdiction before me today. They are:
1) What is the explanation for the default?
2) Does it . .
Cited – Asda Stores Ltd v Thompson, Pullan, and Caller EAT 16-Jun-2003
The appellants had been dismissed after investigations satisfied the employer that the employees had been using illegal drugs. Cross appeals were made in the following misconduct unfair dismissal claim. The employees complained of the use of . .
Cited – Harper and Another v Hopkins CA 12-Oct-2010
The appellants appealed against refusal by the EAT of an extension of time for them to appeal.
Held: The court could take some account of the prospects of success in deciding whether to extend time. . .
Followed – Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and Another v Hincks and Others EAT 14-Jul-2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
EQUAL PAY ACT – Case Management
Equal pay claimants in their original grievances named a . .
Cited – Nalamolu v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust EAT 2-Mar-2012
EAT Practice and Procedure : Appellate Jurisdiction or Reasons or Burns-Barke – The Notice of Appeal was 35 days out of time. The Registrar refused to extend it. The Claimant was 144 days out of time in his . .
Cited – Scotford v Smithkline Beecham EAT 25-Oct-2001
Cited – Khudados v Leggate and others EAT 16-Feb-2005
Application was made to make extensive amendments to the notice of appeal.
Held: The application was refused. The EAT practice guide required an application for an amendment to be made as soon as its necessity became apparent. The applicant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146394