Citizens Advice Wins Appeal as Tribunal Refuses Extension for Late Submission
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has sided with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB), rejecting an appeal due to a late submission. The tribunal cited significant prejudice to the respondent as a key factor in its decision.
• public
Citizens Advice Prevails in Employment Appeal Tribunal Case
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) recently emerged victorious in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case, after the tribunal refused to grant an extension of time for a claimant's late appeal submission. The case, Mangwanya v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, hinged on whether the appellant, Miss G Mangwanya, should be granted an extension despite submitting her appeal slightly past the deadline.
Background of the Case
Miss Mangwanya initially filed a claim with the Employment Tribunal in December 2020, alleging race and disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. After a lengthy hearing spanning November 2021 and November 2022, her claims were dismissed in a judgment sent to the parties on 23 February 2023. The deadline to appeal this decision was 4pm on 6 April 2023. However, the appeal was submitted at 6.24pm on that day, missing the deadline by just over two hours and thus treated as being submitted on 7 April 2023.
Reasons for the Late Submission
The claimant cited physical disabilities and mental health issues, including stress, anxiety, and depression, as contributing factors to the delay. Her son, Mr Mutebuka, a solicitor, assisted her. He also faced debilitating bowel conditions. The tribunal acknowledged these challenges but found that the primary reason for the late submission was "disorganisation and human error." They had left seeking legal advice until late March 2023. The claimant initially struggled with the online system, and there were unclear arrangements between her and Mr Mutebuka regarding who would submit the appeal.
Tribunal's Decision
His Honour Judge James Tayler acknowledged the short delay, only two hours and 24 minutes. However, he emphasised the significant prejudice to the respondent, NACAB. NACAB had, without knowledge of the appeal, disposed of its verbatim notes from the original hearing, leaving only a limited attendance note. The claimant's appeal asserted bias on the part of the Employment Tribunal, making the contemporaneous notes crucial for a fair assessment. The judge stated that, while medical conditions presented a challenge, disorganisation was the main reason for the late submission, and an extension was not appropriate given the prejudice to the respondent.
The Judge also noted that, although it wasn't necessary to the decision, he doubted the appeal had merit.
Legal Principles Considered
The EAT considered relevant legal principles, including the strict approach to time limits for appeal submissions, as established in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Anor. The tribunal also acknowledged the Court of Appeal's guidance in Ridley v HB Kirtley, which cautioned against rigid sub-rules and emphasised the need to consider each case's specific facts. Rule 37(5) EAT Rules regarding minor errors in document submission was also discussed, along with Melki v Bouygues E and S Contracting UK Ltd. The tribunal concluded that if the appeal had been submitted on time, the missing pages from the ET1 claim could have been forgiven as a minor error.
The EAT ultimately refused the appeal from the Registrar’s Order, siding with Citizens Advice due to the prejudice caused by the late submission.
Read the entire judgement here: Miss G Mangwanya v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
