QRS v London Borough of Tower Hamlets & Ors (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - extension of time for seeking a rule 3(10) hearing) [2026] EAT 60 (22 April 2026)

QRS v London Borough of Tower Hamlets & Ors (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - extension of time for seeking a rule 3(10) hearing) [2026] EAT 60 (22 April 2026)

The appellant failed to demonstrate that her ill health materially caused her to miss the deadline for requesting a rule 3(10) hearing, as she was able to manage other litigation tasks during the relevant period. Furthermore, the underlying appeal had become academic due to the dismissal of the substantive claims, and there was no realistic prospect of success. Therefore, there was no good excuse for the default, and no basis to extend time.

Citation
[2026] EAT 60
Parties
Appellant: QRS; Respondents: London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Registrar's Order Refusing Extension of Time for Rule 3(10) Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Rule 3(10) Hearing, Strike Out Applications, Mental Health and Litigation, Academic Appeals
Employment Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Rule 3(10) Hearing Strike Out Applications Mental Health and Litigation Academic Appeals

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QRS

Appellant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Registrar's Order Refusing Extension of Time for Rule 3(10) Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's failure to request a rule 3(10) hearing within the prescribed time was excusable due to ill health
  2. 2 Whether the underlying appeal had become academic and/or had no realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate that her ill health materially caused her to miss the deadline for requesting a rule 3(10) hearing, as she was able to manage other litigation tasks during the relevant period. Furthermore, the underlying appeal had become academic due to the dismissal of the substantive claims, and there was no realistic prospect of success. Therefore, there was no good excuse for the default, and no basis to extend time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Substantive appeal at an end and will proceed no further