The claimant sought to appeal case management orders made orally during an Employment Tribunal hearing in June 2024. The hearing was subsequently postponed after she fell unwell. No written record of the orders was immediately provided. The claimant submitted an initial appeal on 30 July 2024, but it was not properly instituted. She then misread correspondence from the Employment Tribunal, believing time had been extended to 3 October 2024. Written reasons for the orders were eventually sent in August 2024, but the revised notice of appeal submitted on 2 October 2024 was treated as nine days out of time.

HHJ Tayler allowed the appeal. He noted a technical distinction between a written record of an order and written reasons for it, observing that strictly no written record had been produced, only written reasons. Applying Rule 39 of the EAT Rules, which permits waiver of non-compliance in the interests of justice, the EAT allowed the appeal to proceed on the revised notice. Alternatively, even treating the written reasons as the written record, an extension of time would have been granted given the claimant's prompt initial appeal and her understandable misreading of the Tribunal's correspondence.