Dunham v Hull & East Riding Overseas Plastic Surgery [2006] EWCA Civ 557 (11 April 2006)

Dunham v Hull & East Riding Overseas Plastic Surgery [2006] EWCA Civ 557 (11 April 2006)

The Court held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was entitled to exercise a strict discretion regarding time limits, and that the appellant failed to provide a full and timely explanation for the delay. Reliance on alleged advice from tribunal staff was insufficient, especially as details were not provided at the appropriate stage. The responsibility for timely filing rests with the appellant.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 557
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mrs J R Dunham; Defendant/respondent: Hull & East Riding Overseas Plastic Surgery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Discretion
Employment Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs J R Dunham

Claimant/appellant

Hull & East Riding Overseas Plastic Surgery

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing an extension of time for filing an appeal by one day
  2. 2 Whether reliance on advice from tribunal staff can justify late filing

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was entitled to exercise a strict discretion regarding time limits, and that the appellant failed to provide a full and timely explanation for the delay. Reliance on alleged advice from tribunal staff was insufficient, especially as details were not provided at the appropriate stage. The responsibility for timely filing rests with the appellant.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused