The Claimants lost their claims at the ET and appealed the decision. Unfortunately they did not include the ET1 and ET3 with the appeal documentation. Accordingly the Claimants accepted that the appeal had not been properly instituted until copies of those documents were subsequently sent by them to the EAT, which was more than 42 days after the written judgment and reasons was promulgated. They also accepted that they had not advanced an explanation for the initial omission such as would warrant an extension of time. However, they contended that time for instituting their appeal did not begin to run until the date on which the ET promulgated its separate written record of decisions on case-management applications that had been adjudicated during the course of the full merits hearing. If so, the appeal was properly instituted in time. Alternatively, they contended that there were other circumstances which warranted an extension of time in this case. The EAT’s Registrar rejected both arguments. The Claimants appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Time for instituting an appeal from the judgment ran from when the written judgment and accompanying reasons for it were promulgated, not the later date on which the written record of case-management decisions was promulgated. Accordingly, the appeal had been instituted out of time. This was not a case where there were exceptional circumstances such that time should be extended. In particular the fact that the grounds raised matters said to have affected the fairness of the hearing, did not constitute such circumstances.