"… that an appeal not lodged within the 42 days validly constituted, i.e. accompanied by the required documents, will be out of time, and extensions of time are only exceptionally granted …"
"If the appellant makes a minor error in complying with the requirement under rule 3(1) to submit relevant documents to the Appeal Tribunal, and rectifies that error (on a request from the Appeal Tribunal or otherwise), the time prescribed that the institution of an appeal under rule 3 may be extended if it is considered just to do so having regard to all the circumstances, including the manner in which, and the timeliness with which, the error has been rectified and any prejudice to any respondent."
"We conclude that the exercise of the discretion involves recognising a material distinction. There is a legally significant difference between the case of an appellant who lodges a notice of appeal and nearly all of the documents required by rule 3(1) inside the time limit, and an appellant who lodges nothing until after the time limit has passed. The first such appellant has not fully met the requirements of rule 3(1), but has, nevertheless, substantially complied with them. How substantially depends on what document/documents is/are missing, how much of any document is missing, and how important the document is to the appeal. The appellant has also, on the face of it, complied with the time limit of rule 3(3). That difference is obviously material to the exercise of the discretion to extend time. It follows that that difference should, in principle, be reflected in the EAT's approach to the exercise of its power to extend time. We accept that the authorities about cases in which documents were missing do not refer to this distinction, and, it follows, do not consider whether or not it is material to the exercise of the discretion. But we see nothing in the reported decisions in this Court to suggest that we are wrong to hold that the distinction we have identified is material to the exercise of the discretion."
"The ordinary meaning of 'minor' is something that is comparatively unimportant. In the context of this rule it can be contrasted with a serious or substantive error. Rule 37(5) is designed to forgive errors which are negligible or of no real importance to the proper progress of an appeal. The EAT Rules did and still do require the appellant to serve a Notice of Appeal substantially in accordance with the standard forms. It requires a written record of the ET's Judgment or Order and Written Reasons for it (or an explanation why they are not included). These are core documents in an appeal. Without the Notice the EAT cannot understand the complaint. Without the Judgment and/or Reasons the EAT cannot normally assess whether there has been an arguable error of law. It would be a rare case in which it could be said that the omission of one of these documents was a minor error. Such an error would normally be serious and of real importance to the proper progress of the appeal. The other end of the spectrum is where all the required documents have been attached but just one or two pages are missing. It is likely to be a minor error to omit a single page of a document that is otherwise intelligible."
"I do not accept that the failure to provide the written judgment was a minor mistake. The written judgment is a required document that must be provided. The EAT Rules do not permit an explanation to be given for failing to submit the written judgment. It is the judgment against which an appeal is brought. It is generally necessary to consider the precise terms of the judgment when considering the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, I do not consider it appropriate to grant an extension of time pursuant to Rule 37(5) EAT Rules."
"I consider that the judgment or order that is under appeal is a fundamental document for any appeal. Although the reasons were attached to the notice of appeal, the case management order containing the decisions was not. The rules and the practice direction merely identify that the judgment or order under appeal, as well as the reasons, are required to accompany the notice of appeal. I do not consider this to be a minor error. I do not consider this is a case where rule 37(5) applies."
"'Minor' is an ordinary English word. It is a comparative adjective, as the Judge observed. The opposite of 'minor' is 'major'. Rule 37(5) refers to 'a minor error in complying with the requirement under rule 3(1) to submit relevant documents' to the EAT. Whether an error is 'minor', or not, therefore, is not an abstract question. It is to be answered in the context of compliance with rule 3(1). I consider that the Judge's interpretation is wrong for three reasons. First, it ignores that criterion for testing whether the error is 'minor'. The relevant error is a minor error in complying with rule 3(1), not a 'minor error' in doing something else, or a free-floating 'minor error'. Second, it adds a gloss, which comes from cases on the unamended Rules, that the document or part of the document which is the subject of the 'minor error' should have been irrelevant, or have no importance, to the 'proper process of the appeal'. There is no support for that gloss in the words of rule 37(5). Third, an evident purpose of the Rule 37(5) is to confer a broad discretion on the rule of EAT (in cases of a minor relevant error which has been rectified) to decide whether to give an extension of time having regard to all the circumstances. The scope for the exercise of that discretion is greatly reduced if the threshold condition for its exercise is interpreted too narrowly."
"The first question is thus whether the error was 'minor'. The Judge thought that it was not, because the grounds of resistance are of their nature central to the issues in the case. I see the argument, but I agree with Elisabeth Laing LJ that that does not represent the right approach to assessing whether an error is minor for the purpose of this rule. For the reasons given by her, such an approach would undermine the evident purpose of the amendment, by greatly limiting the scope for the exercise of the discretion for which it provides. In my view, the error in this case was minor because it did not involve any wholesale non-compliance with rule 3(1)(b), even as regards the response. What the Appellant failed to serve was not the ET3 itself but only a part of it. If, as often happens, the respondent had stated its grounds of resistance in the body of the response form itself and not in an attachment, but the Appellant had failed to copy that particular page, that would be just the kind of minor error that the amendment is directed to; and I cannot see what difference it makes that the omitted grounds were for convenience contained on a separate sheet or sheets."
"I clarified that I chose not to appeal or seek reconsideration from the Employment Tribunal (ET) concerning EJ Allen's refusal of my postponement application and the rule 47 decision. I lack confidence in the ET's ability to review their findings, including their refusal to remove my confidential medical information from EJ Allen's rule 47 decision published online."