Employment Appeal Tribunal Clarifies Extension of Time Rules for Respondent Answers
The EAT will adopt a less strict approach to respondent answer extensions compared to appeal submissions, prioritising justice and fairness.
• public
EAT Distinguishes Between Appeal and Answer Time Limits
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the approach to granting extensions of time for respondents to submit their answers to an appeal. The case, Lau v Dragon Cat Ltd T/A Dragon Cat Cafe & Ors, considered whether the EAT should apply the same strictness to an extension for an answer as it does for the submission of an appeal itself.
The appellant, Miss H Lau, appealed against a Registrar's Order. The central issue was the respondents' late submission of their answer to the appeal. The respondents explained their delay by citing an administrative error, where the order permitting some grounds of appeal to proceed was initially not sent to them. They also faced technical difficulties opening the order as an attachment on their mobile phones, only taking further action after a reminder email.
Historically, the EAT has maintained a notoriously strict approach to extensions of time for submitting appeals. However, this latest judgment draws a clear distinction. His Honour Judge James Tayler, referencing established case law such as Abdelghafar and the unreported decision in Slingsby v Griffith Smith Solicitors, concluded that a less stringent approach is warranted for respondent answers.
The judgment highlights that the process of lodging an appeal initiates new proceedings, whereas a respondent's answer is a procedural step within existing proceedings. The EAT Rules themselves, particularly Rule 26, grant the tribunal discretion to make orders such as debarring a party or striking out an answer, but also allow for broader discretion to deal with cases justly. This includes considering the overriding objective, which aims to ensure parties are on an equal footing and cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly.
In this specific case, the tribunal took into account the initial failure to serve the appeal correctly on the respondents, the short period of delay, and the lack of prejudice to the claimant. These factors, combined with the potential benefits of a properly argued appeal, led to the decision to grant the extension. The appeal from the Registrar's Order was subsequently refused.
This ruling is likely to be welcomed by respondents facing genuine administrative or technical challenges, ensuring that procedural oversights do not automatically lead to the forfeiture of their right to present their case, provided the delay is not excessive and does not cause undue prejudice.
Read the entire judgment here: Miss H Lau v 1 Dragon Cat Ltd T/A Dragon Cat Cafe 2 Mr Yohannes Miller 3 Ms Yen-Ting Li EAT 65
