The claimant alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent failed to enter a response within the period required, and was refused an extension of time. It appealed that refusal, saying the tribunal had failed to allow for the factors enumerated in the Kwik Save case. The respondent claimed those guidelines had been superceded by the newer rules.
Held: The Kwik Save guidelines remained effective. The case was remitted to the same tribunal.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judges:
Mr Recorder Underhill QC
Citations:
EAT/1194/00, [2001] UKEAT 1194 – 00 – 1411
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 3(1), Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 1996
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Costellow v Somerset County Council CA 1993
The court asked whether it was appropriate to allow an extension of time to file an appeal: ‘Save in special cases or exceptional circumstances it can rarely be appropriate on an overall assessment of what justice requires to deny the plaintiff an . .
See Also – Polygon Corporation v Tregunna EAT 21-Feb-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.168404
