Consignia Plc v Russell Sealy: CA 19 Jun 2002

The complainant was a post office employee. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal, but he posted it at a time when in the normal course of delivery, it would not arrive. He claimed to be unaware of the normal times for delivery.
Held: It was for the claimant to establish that his case fell within the section allowing a tribunal to permit late service. The tribunal could not assume from his employment, levels of knowledge about such matters. Whether a letter would be delivered in the normal course of post was to be assessed objectively, and not subjectively. It is unfortunate that the rules of the employment tribunals had not been brought into line with those applying to litigation under the Civil Procedure Rules. The rule in Godwin did not apply in employment tribunal cases.


Lord Justice Brooke


Times 03-Jul-2002, Gazette 01-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 878, [2002] ICR 1193, [2002] Emp LR 983, [2002] IRLR 624, [2002] 3 All ER 801




Employment Rights Act 1996 111(2)


England and Wales


CitedGodwin v Swindon Borough Council CA 10-Oct-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The . .
Appeal fromConsignia (Formerly the Post Office) v Sealy EAT 11-Jun-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedNSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174008