Acetrip Ltd v. Dogra (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Time for Appealing) [2019] UKEAT 0329_18_0103 (01 March 2019)

Acetrip Ltd v. Dogra (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Time for Appealing) [2019] UKEAT 0329_18_0103 (01 March 2019)

The failure to submit the ET1 and ET3 on time was due to avoidable carelessness, not a good excuse or exceptional circumstances. While the late receipt of other documents on the last day was excusable, the omission of ET1 and ET3 was not. The established legal approach does not permit extension in the absence of a sufficient explanation for the default.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0329_18_0103
Parties
Appellant: Acetrip Limited; Respondent: Mr Dogra
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal Against Registrar's Order / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time for Instituting Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosures, Statutory Rights, Unpaid Wages, Procedural Default
Employment Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosures Statutory Rights Unpaid Wages +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Acetrip Limited

Appellant

Mr Dogra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal Against Registrar's Order / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time for Instituting Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason or exceptional circumstances to extend time for instituting an appeal to the EAT
  2. 2 Whether the failure to submit required documents (ET1 and ET3) on time was excusable

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to submit the ET1 and ET3 on time was due to avoidable carelessness, not a good excuse or exceptional circumstances. While the late receipt of other documents on the last day was excusable, the omission of ET1 and ET3 was not. The established legal approach does not permit extension in the absence of a sufficient explanation for the default.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time to institute appeal refused