Mr D Akhigbe v 1) St Edward Homes Ltd ("SEH") & Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 06 September 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down: AKHIGBE v ST EDWARDS HOMES AND ORS
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 142
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 142
Case No: EA-2023-000379-AS
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 6 September 2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MR D AKHIGBE Appellant
- and –
(1) ST EDWARD HOMES LTD (“SEH”)
(2) ALL KNIGHT SAFETY LTD (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)
(3) MS JULIA OLDBURY-DAVIES
(4) MR ALAN EDGAR
(5) MR ALLAN MICHAELS
(6) NIBLOCK ELECTRICAL SERVICES LTD
(7) MR PETER BURCOW
(8) BERKELEY HOMES (URBAN RENAISSANCE) LTD (BERKELEY
HOMES)
Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Warren Fitt (acting under ELAAS) for the Appellant
James Williams (instructed by Edwin Coe Solicitors) for the Respondents
REVIEW HEARING
Hearing date: 19 June 2024
with further submissions in writing on 13 and 15 August 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down: AKHIGBE v ST EDWARDS HOMES AND ORS
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 142
SUMMARY
Practice and procedure - application for review under rule 33 EAT Rules 1993 - compliance with
rule 3(1) - extension of time pursuant to rule 37(1)
The claimant had lodged an appeal against a judgment of the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) that had
addressed seven separate claims, albeit his appeal was limited to decisions made in respect of only
four of those claims (two presented in 2018, two in 2019). In filing his appeal within the 42-day time
limit, the claimant provided the pleadings relating to one of the four claims in question (the second
2018 claim), separately providing an explanation not including the other pleadings. The appeal was
initially accepted by the EAT as having been properly instituted in time. At a subsequent hearing
under rule 3(10) EAT Rules, the appeal was permitted to proceed to a full hearing on amended
grounds, which further limited its focus (withdrawing the challenge to the decision relating to the
2019 claims). The respondents, however, applied for the rule 3(10) order to be revoked on the basis
that the EAT had erred in treating the appeal as having been properly instituted.
Held: granting an extension of time for the appeal and dismissing the respondents’ application
An explanation could be implied from the notice and grounds of appeal for the failure to provide the
pleadings in the three claims that were not the subject of challenge. In addition, the pleadings in the
first of the 2018 claims were incorporated within those relating to the second 2018 claim, and had
thus been lodged by the claimant when initially filing his appeal. The claimant had, however, failed
to comply with the requirements of rule 3(1) EAT Rules in respect of the 2019 claims and the EAT
had thus erred in treating the appeal as having been properly instituted within the 42-day time limit.
Considering the claimant’s application for an extension of time, although he had failed to demonstrate
a good reason for failing to lodge the pleadings relating to the 2019 claims, he had subsequently
withdrawn any challenge to the ET’s decision relating to those claims. That amounted to an
exceptional circumstance such as to warrant the grant of an extension of time. The application to
revoke the order made at the rule 3(10) hearing was therefore refused.
To continue reading
Request your trial