Ministry of Justice Wins Appeal Case After Claimant's Prolonged Non-Engagement
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has struck out two appeals against the Ministry of Justice following persistent delays and a lack of engagement from the appellant.
• public
Tribunal Strikes Out Appeals Over Excessive Delay
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed two appeals brought by Ms R Jones against the Ministry of Justice. The decision, made on 22 December 2025, comes after a lengthy and complex history spanning over five and a half years.
Appeals Dismissed for Non-Compliance
The appeals concerned case management decisions made by the Employment Tribunal in December 2019 and February 2020. Ms Jones's appeals to the EAT were submitted significantly out of time; one was a day late, while the other was 43 days late. Despite the respondent initially not objecting to extensions, the Registrar ultimately refused them, a decision Ms Jones sought to appeal.
Years of Procedural Hurdles
The case has been marked by numerous procedural issues, including adjournments due to the claimant's alleged ill health. The claimant contended she suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome, which she claimed prevented her from working with documents. This led to various attempts to make adjustments, such as transcribing correspondence and reading documents to her. However, the tribunal noted a consistent lack of concrete medical evidence to support these claims or justify the requested adjustments.
EAT's Efforts to Progress Case
Throughout the proceedings, the EAT administration made considerable efforts to accommodate the claimant's needs. This included facilitating dictated correspondence and arranging for staff to read documents to her. Despite these efforts, the claimant expressed dissatisfaction with the administrative process, arguing that the method of taking notes before typing was not legally compliant.
Final Decision and Striking Out
Ultimately, His Honour Judge James Tayler concluded that the appellant had ceased to cooperate with the EAT, creating a situation where a fair hearing within a reasonable time could not be anticipated. The judge highlighted the considerable prejudice and costs incurred by the respondent due to the extensive delays. Consequently, both appeals were struck out, deeming it the only just course of action.
Read the entire judgment here: Ms R Jones v Ministry of Justice [2025] EAT 205
