Morrison v Hillcrest Care Ltd.

Morrison v Hillcrest Care Ltd.

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to comply with the time limits for appeal, provided no exceptional circumstances to justify an extension, and the rules apply equally to all parties. There was no real prospect of success on any ground of appeal.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Neville Morrison; Respondent/respondent: Hillcrest Care Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From EAT to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Litigants in Person
Employment Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Litigants in Person

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neville Morrison

Applicant/appellant

Hillcrest Care Ltd

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From EAT to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing an extension of time for appeal under Rule 3(10) of the EAT Rules
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to extend time breached the applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to comply with the time limits for appeal, provided no exceptional circumstances to justify an extension, and the rules apply equally to all parties. There was no real prospect of success on any ground of appeal.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No extension of time granted