A Anghel v Middlesex University

A Anghel v Middlesex University

The appeal was not properly instituted within the time limit because the grounds of claim document was submitted one day late. The appellant’s error and status as a litigant in person did not amount to a good reason for extending time. There were no exceptional circumstances to justify an extension. The responsibility for compliance lay with the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Ms R Anghel; Respondent: Middlesex University
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Registrar’s Order Refusing Extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Harassment, Unfair Dismissal, Reconsideration Applications
Employment Law Practice and Procedure Extension of Time for Appeal Harassment Unfair Dismissal Reconsideration Applications

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms R Anghel

Appellant

Middlesex University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Registrar’s Order Refusing Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was properly instituted within the time limit
  2. 2 Whether there was a good reason to extend time for instituting the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was not properly instituted within the time limit because the grounds of claim document was submitted one day late. The appellant’s error and status as a litigant in person did not amount to a good reason for extending time. There were no exceptional circumstances to justify an extension. The responsibility for compliance lay with the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against the Registrar’s order is dismissed
  • Underlying substantive appeal is dismissed