Dunham v Hull & East Riding Overseas Plastic Surgery

Dunham v Hull & East Riding Overseas Plastic Surgery

The responsibility for complying with time limits rests with the parties and their advisers. There was no sufficient or exceptional explanation for the delay, and the alleged advice from tribunal staff was not substantiated in a timely or detailed manner. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's exercise of discretion was proper and there is no arguable basis for appellate intervention.

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
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Unfair Dismissal

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

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal by one day
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to rely on advice allegedly given by tribunal staff regarding method and timing of filing

Ratio Decidendi

The responsibility for complying with time limits rests with the parties and their advisers. There was no sufficient or exceptional explanation for the delay, and the alleged advice from tribunal staff was not substantiated in a timely or detailed manner. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's exercise of discretion was proper and there is no arguable basis for appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused.