Gate Gourmet v. Jangra [2000] UKEAT 547_99_0702 (7 February 2000)

Gate Gourmet v. Jangra [2000] UKEAT 547_99_0702 (7 February 2000)

Given the seriousness and difficulty of the matters in issue, and the lack of substantive prejudice to the appellant, justice required that both sides be heard. The delay did not introduce new grounds or cause real delay to the substantive appeal. Therefore, time for the Respondent's Answer and for appealing the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 547_99_0702
Parties
Respondent: Mrs Jangra; Appellant: Gate Gourmet (London) Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Registrar's Order / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time to File Respondent's Answer and Appeal Registrar's Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; time extended for Respondent's Answer and appeal against Registrar's order; costs awarded against Respondent.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Procedural Default, Unfair Dismissal, Costs
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Extension of Time Procedural Default Unfair Dismissal Costs

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mrs Jangra

Respondent

Gate Gourmet (London) Ltd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Registrar's Order / Hearing of Application for Extension of Time to File Respondent's Answer and Appeal Registrar's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent should be granted an extension of time to file her Answer to the Notice of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent should be granted an extension of time to appeal the Registrar's order debarring her from defending the appeal
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded due to unreasonable delay or conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Given the seriousness and difficulty of the matters in issue, and the lack of substantive prejudice to the appellant, justice required that both sides be heard. The delay did not introduce new grounds or cause real delay to the substantive appeal. Therefore, time for the Respondent's Answer and for appealing the Registrar's order was extended.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; time extended for Respondent's Answer and appeal against Registrar's order; costs awarded against Respondent.

Orders

  • Time for filing Respondent's Answer extended to 25 August 1999.
  • Time for appealing Registrar's order extended to 27 September 1999.