Appeal Extension Granted in Discrimination Case: AB v University of East London

By Rachel Ellis Partner & Regional ER Manager &

Jazmeer Jackson Employment Rights Lawyer

The case of AB v University of East London involved an appeal by AB, a former employee of the University of East London (UEL), regarding decisions made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Registrar. AB initially brought claims of breach of contract, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and direct sex discrimination against the UEL. These claims were heard and ultimately dismissed by the Employment Tribunal (ET), leading AB to seek an appeal. 

The issue before the EAT was whether AB could be granted an extension of time to lodge her appeal against the ET decision. The appeal process was initially delayed due to AB failing to include all the required documents—specifically, the ET1 and ET3 forms for the two claims. 

Tribunal Decision 

The ET had dismissed AB’s claims, concluding that there was no sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of discrimination and breach of contract. Following this, AB appealed the decision, but her appeal submission was incomplete, as she did not include the forms necessary for the appeal to be properly instituted. 

When AB submitted her appeal, she failed to include the ET1 claim and ET3 response forms for both of her original ET claims. Upon being notified of the omission by the EAT, AB provided the missing documents 15 days after the original deadline. AB sought an extension of time, arguing that she faced personal challenges, including health issues and a lack of legal assistance, which impacted her ability to properly file the documents on time. 

EAT Appeal and Outcome 

The EAT Registrar initially refused to grant an extension of time for AB's appeal. AB then appealed this decision to the EAT Judge, who considered whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the delay in filing the appeal. 

The EAT Judge ultimately allowed the extension of time, taking into account the following factors: 

1. Exceptional Circumstances: AB faced significant personal challenges. Her sister, who had been assisting her with her legal case, was seriously ill, leaving AB to prepare the appeal alone. Additionally, AB had her own health issues and caring responsibilities for her mother. These factors were considered exceptional and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. 
2. Substantial Compliance: AB had substantially complied with the requirements of the appeal by submitting other necessary documents within the 42-day limit. The omission of the ET1 and ET3 forms, while significant, was corrected soon after the omission was identified by the EAT. 
3. Timeliness of Correction: AB rectified the error within five days of being notified, which indicated a prompt response once the omission was brought to her attention. There was no evidence of intentional delay or negligence in her actions. 
4. Lack of Prejudice to Respondent: The EAT found that the University of East London did not suffer significant prejudice from the delay in filing the appeal documents. The extension of time would not have caused substantial harm to the respondent, and there was a greater interest in allowing AB the opportunity to have her appeal heard. 

Key Takeaways 

1. Grounds for Extension of Time: This case underscores that an extension of time can be granted where there are exceptional circumstances that prevent a party from complying with procedural requirements. Personal health issues and the absence of legal representation were considered sufficient grounds in AB's case. 
2. Prompt Rectification of Errors: The EAT is more likely to grant an extension if the party corrects procedural errors promptly after they are identified. AB's timely response to the EAT’s notification of missing documents contributed positively to her case. 
3. Public Interest and Access to Justice: The decision highlights the EAT's commitment to ensuring access to justice, particularly for individuals facing personal challenges. It emphasises that procedural rules should not be applied in an overly rigid manner, especially when doing so would unfairly prevent a claimant from pursuing their case. 

Implications for Trade Union Representatives 

Trade union representatives should advise members of the importance of submitting complete documentation when appealing ET decisions. However, they should also be aware that the EAT has discretion to grant extensions in cases where there are compelling reasons for delays, such as significant health issues or other exceptional personal circumstances. It is crucial to act promptly to rectify any procedural omissions and provide full explanations to avoid dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds.