At the end of a full merits hearing the ET gave an oral decision dismissing the Claimant’s claims. In subsequent timely emails both parties requested the ET to provide written reasons. Prior to receipt of the written reasons the Claimant sent his notice of appeal to the EAT. He explained to the EAT that he had not provided it with the ET’s written reasons because they had been requested, but not yet received. He attached copies of the relevant emails. Subsequently the ET sent the parties the written reasons, but the Claimant did not at that point send a copy to the EAT. After being told that a copy was required in order for the appeal to be properly instituted, he provided it, but at that point it was more than 42 days from when the written reasons had been sent. The matter was referred to the Registrar, who decided that the appeal had not been properly instituted in time, and declined to extend time (the first order). The Claimant notified the EAT that he wished to appeal the first order, but did so only after the time limit for doing so had expired. In due course the Registrar made a second order, refusing to extend time in that regard. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. In view of the fact that when the Claimant first sent in his notice of appeal, he also provided an explanation of why the written reasons were not attached, supported by copies of emails showing that there had been timely requests to the ET to provide written reasons, and taking account of the EAT’s powers under rule 39(2) and (3), the EAT should have treated the substantive appeal as properly instituted. In view of the conclusion that, on these particular facts, the original substantive appeal should have been treated as instituted in time, there were also exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time in respect of the late appeal against the second Registrar’s order.