Employment Appeal Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Due to Untimely Request
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal after the appellant failed to request a Rule 3(10) hearing within the stipulated time frame.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Registrar's Decision on Time Extension
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal from a Registrar's order, refusing to grant an extension of time for a Rule 3(10) hearing request. The appellant, Ms S Daramy, acting as a litigant in person, had appealed a decision that refused to strike out the responses to her claims against the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and others.
The EAT found that while the appellant experienced periods of mental and physical ill health, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that this ill health caused her failure to act on critical communications from the EAT in a timely manner. Specifically, the tribunal noted that Ms Daramy did not become aware of a Rule 3(7) letter, which indicated her appeal was not arguable, until weeks after the deadline for requesting a Rule 3(10) hearing had passed. The tribunal also highlighted that the appellant had previous experience with similar procedural steps and had previously been unsuccessful in seeking an extension of time.
Furthermore, the respondent argued that the underlying appeal had become academic, as the substantive tribunal claims had already been dismissed due to the claimant's non-attendance at a full merits hearing. This dismissal decision had not been appealed by the claimant. The EAT agreed that there was no realistic prospect of the present appeal succeeding or of overturning the decision not to strike out the responses.
In its judgment, the tribunal referenced several key legal principles, including the guidelines for granting extensions of time as established in *Abdelghafar* and refined in subsequent Court of Appeal decisions such as *Jurkowska* and *Ridley*. The EAT also considered the specific guidance for cases involving mental ill health, as outlined in *J v K*.
Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that there was no good excuse for the default in requesting the Rule 3(10) hearing, the underlying appeal was academic and had no realistic prospect of success, and there were no other circumstances warranting an extension of time. Consequently, the appellant's application for an extension of time was refused, and the substantive appeal was brought to an end.
Read the entire judgment here: Ms S Daramy v London Borough of Tower Hamlets EAT 60
