Lungu (t/a Len Fowler Trophies) v Shell (Practice and Procedure: Time for appealing) [2015] UKEAT 1178_14_0210 (02 October 2015)

Lungu (t/a Len Fowler Trophies) v Shell (Practice and Procedure: Time for appealing) [2015] UKEAT 1178_14_0210 (02 October 2015)

The Appellant failed to provide a good explanation for not lodging the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time. His disability did not prevent him from accessing the ET’s Reasons in Word format, and he was able to make a timely application for reconsideration. Even after receiving the Braille version, he delayed further without adequate justification. The Registrar was correct to refuse an extension of time.

Citation
[2015] UKEAT 1178_14_0210
Parties
Appellant/respondent Below: Pavel Lungu; Respondent/appellant Below: Claimant's Estate
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Registrar’s Order (employment Appeal Tribunal) / Appeal From Refusal of Extension of Time to Appeal Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Reasonable Adjustments for Disability, Time Limits for Appeals, Practice and Procedure in Employment Appeal Tribunal
Employment Law Civil Procedure Disability Law Extension of Time for Appeal Reasonable Adjustments for Disability Time Limits for Appeals Practice and Procedure in Employment Appeal Tribunal

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavel Lungu

Appellant/respondent Below

Claimant's Estate

Respondent/appellant Below

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Registrar’s Order (employment Appeal Tribunal) / Appeal From Refusal of Extension of Time to Appeal Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the time for appeal should run from the date the Braille version of the ET’s Reasons was received by the Appellant, who is blind, or from the date the written reasons were sent by email
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant provided a good explanation for failing to lodge the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time limit
  3. 3 Whether reasonable adjustments required the time limit to be extended

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to provide a good explanation for not lodging the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time. His disability did not prevent him from accessing the ET’s Reasons in Word format, and he was able to make a timely application for reconsideration. Even after receiving the Braille version, he delayed further without adequate justification. The Registrar was correct to refuse an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No extension of time granted for lodging appeal
  • Registrar’s order refusing extension of time upheld