Hamm v Wear Valley District Council [1997] UKEAT 777_96_0502 (5 February 1997)

The appellant failed to provide a good excuse for the delay, especially given his awareness of the importance of time limits and his demonstrated ability to correspond promptly.

Citation: [1997] UKEAT 777_96_0502
Parties: Appellant: Mr Hamm; Respondent: Unknown Respondent
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 05 February 1997
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Registrar's Refusal to Extend Time for Appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Extension of Time, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Time Limits

Employment Law Discrimination Law Extension of Time Race Discrimination Sex Discrimination Time Limits

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Mr Hamm

Appellant

Unknown Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

1 Whether the appellant has shown sufficient grounds for extension of time to file notice of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide a good excuse for the delay, especially given his awareness of the importance of time limits and his demonstrated ability to correspond promptly.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

No extension of time granted
Registrar's decision upheld