EAT Practice and Procedure : Transfer/Hearing Together – Time for appealing
Appeal from Registrar: the time limited by rule 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (‘the EAT Rules’) for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, as provided for by rule 3(3)(1)(a)-(c) of the EAT Rules, started to run when an Employment Tribunal sent out a judgment and written reasons even though it had been wrongly addressed both in terms of the identity of the person to whom it had been addressed as well as the address itself. That was so even though under rule 86 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the document had not been ‘delivered’ – Sian v Abbey National plc [2004] ICR 55; [2004] IRLR 185 considered and applied.
Where two cases involving two different Claimants are heard together the two cases constitute the proceedings for the purposes of rule 3(1) of the EAT Rules and therefore even if only one Claimant proposes to appeal, rule 3(1)(b) requires the prospective Appellant to either serve the ET1 form and ET3 forms in the co-Claimant’s case or give an explanation for not doing so and an appeal will not be properly instituted where neither step has been taken, notwithstanding the fact that the co-Claimant proves to have no interest in the appeal process.
Whilst the conduct of a legal adviser may be a factor to take account of in exercising the discretion to extend time it is likely to be difficult to investigate and unlikely to be a compelling factor – Muschett v Hounslow London Borough Council [2009] ICR 424 considered.
The very considerable delay in instituting the appeal was not excusable, ‘extreme diligence’ had not been shown by the Appellant and his legal advisers and discretion was not exercised in favour of extending time.
Hand QC HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0203 – 14 – 0902
Bailii
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 3(3)
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542434
