Slingsby v Griffith Smith Solicitors [2009] UKEAT 0619_07_1002 (10 February 2009)

Slingsby v Griffith Smith Solicitors [2009] UKEAT 0619_07_1002 (10 February 2009)

The strict principles governing extensions of time for appeals do not apply to Answers, for which a general discretionary approach is appropriate. However, the same strict principles do apply to cross-appeals, which are juridically equivalent to appeals. In this case, the delay in lodging the Answer was minimal, promptly rectified, and caused no prejudice, so the extension was rightly granted. For the cross-appeal, there was no good excuse or exceptional circumstances, so the extension should not have been granted.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0619_07_1002
Parties
Appellant: Mr Slingsby; Respondent: Respondents
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Registrar’s Order / Appeal Against Grant of Extension of Time for Answer and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Cross Appeal
Employment Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Employment Appeal Tribunal Cross Appeal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Slingsby

Appellant

Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Registrar’s Order / Appeal Against Grant of Extension of Time for Answer and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar was correct to grant an extension of time for the delivery of the Respondent's Answer and Cross-Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The strict principles governing extensions of time for appeals do not apply to Answers, for which a general discretionary approach is appropriate. However, the same strict principles do apply to cross-appeals, which are juridically equivalent to appeals. In this case, the delay in lodging the Answer was minimal, promptly rectified, and caused no prejudice, so the extension was rightly granted. For the cross-appeal, there was no good excuse or exceptional circumstances, so the extension should not have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • The appeal against the extension of time for the delivery of the Answer is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the extension of time for delivery of the cross-appeal is allowed.