EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
An Appellant who was enjoying an extended holiday on a yacht in the Pacific filled in a Notice of Appeal which though it gave his home address, supplied only an email address in response to the pro forma request to supply a postal address for service. He did not comply with requests to provide such a postal address. An unless order was made, as a result of which his appeal was struck out, but it was subsequently reinstated by the Registrar, who then considered whether it had been properly instituted within the time limit for appealing of 42 days. She held it had not, because it did not provide a postal address for service, and rejected the appeal as being out of time. Held on appeal (determined in the Claimant’s absence since he was on a further voyage) that he had actually provided a postal address, albeit not in response to the direct invitation in the pro forma to do so; that the rule requires only that the Notice be ‘substantially’ in accordance with the form annexed to the Rules, and since the necessary information to satisfy the demands of policy had been given, and it was an address at which and through which the Claimant could be contacted, the Notice of Appeal was properly instituted, the appeal against the Registrar’s Order should be allowed, and the Claimant’s appeal against the Tribunal decision should now be considered on the sift in accordance with Rule 3.
Langstaff P J
[2015] UKEAT 0019 – 14 – 2506
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550673