Miller v Lambeth Primary Care Trust

Miller v Lambeth Primary Care Trust

The applicant's dyslexia and the circumstances described did not provide a satisfactory or sufficient explanation for the delay, and did not constitute exceptional reasons for an extension of time. The judge's exercise of discretion was within the proper scope and not unreasonable.

Parties
Applicant: Miller; Respondent: Lambeth Primary Care Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Unfair Dismissal, Victimisation, Unlawful Deduction of Wages, Costs
Employment Law Extension of Time Unfair Dismissal Victimisation Unlawful Deduction of Wages Costs

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miller

Applicant

Lambeth Primary Care Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided sufficient exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time for lodging a notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the judge exercised discretion appropriately in refusing the extension

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's dyslexia and the circumstances described did not provide a satisfactory or sufficient explanation for the delay, and did not constitute exceptional reasons for an extension of time. The judge's exercise of discretion was within the proper scope and not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • renewed application for permission to appeal is refused