Mr R Melki v Bouygues E and S Contracting UK Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Andrew Burns Deputy High Court Judge |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 13 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Melki v Bouygues E&S Contracting UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 36
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 36 Case No: EA-2022-000656-NLD
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 13 March 2024
Before :
ANDREW BURNS KC
DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MR R MELKI Appellant
- and -
BOUYGUES E AND S CONTRACTING UK LTD Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JAMES GOUDIE KC, OLIVER MILLS and ALIYA AL-YASSIN
(instructed by Advocate) for the Appellant
COLM KELLY (instructed by Pinsent Masons) for the Respondent
APPEAL FROM REGISTRAR’S ORDER
Hearing date: 27 February 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Melki v Bouygues E&S Contracting UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 36
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JURISDICTIONAL/TIME POINTS
The 2023 amendment of the EAT Rules introduced a new power for the EAT to extend time where a
minor error to submit relevant documents with the Notice of Appeal has been rectified and it is just
to extend time having regard to all the circumstances. The amended EAT Rules came into force on
30 September 2023 and from that date the new rule 37(5) applied to all appeals not only to those
appeals which were instituted after 30 September 2023.
The Claimant appealed the order of the Registrar refusing his application to extend time to present
his notice of appeal. The Notice of Appeal was served but the Respondent’s ET3 Response form was
attached omitting the Grounds of Resistance which formed an important part of the Response. The
Claimant rectified the error by serving the Grounds of Resistance 6 days out of time.
The EAT applied rule 37(5) but held that this was not a minor error in complying with the requirement
to submit the relevant documents. The EAT therefore could not extend time under rule 37(5).
Applying the rule 37(1) test in the alternative, there was no good explanation or excuse for the failure
to submit the Grounds of Resistance. There were no exceptional circumstances to justify an extension
of time. The Appeal against the Registrar’s order was dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial