Howarth v. Telegraph Management Ltd [2000] UKEAT 996_99_2202 (22 February 2000)

Howarth v. Telegraph Management Ltd [2000] UKEAT 996_99_2202 (22 February 2000)

The explanation for delay was inadequate; solicitors knew the nature of the appeal early and could have processed it without waiting for witness statements. Ordinary prudent practice should have ensured timely submission. The short delay and lack of prejudice to respondent are insufficient grounds for extension.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 996_99_2202
Parties
Appellant: Mrs Howarth; Respondent: Telegraph Management Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Hearing
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Constructive Dismissal, Appeal Procedure
Employment Law Procedural Law Extension of Time Constructive Dismissal Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Mrs Howarth

Appellant

Telegraph Management Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant provided adequate explanation for delay in lodging appeal
  2. 2 Whether extension of time for appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The explanation for delay was inadequate; solicitors knew the nature of the appeal early and could have processed it without waiting for witness statements. Ordinary prudent practice should have ensured timely submission. The short delay and lack of prejudice to respondent are insufficient grounds for extension.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No extension of time granted for appeal
  • Registrar's decision refusing extension of time affirmed