The Claimants sought to appeal an ET judgment and their solicitor lodged the appeal on their behalf. Unfortunately the solicitor was unable to upload both the actual judgment and the written reasons though the e-file portal and so only uploaded the reasons, believing that the EAT would need to see the full written reasons as opposed to the short judgment which did not contain those written reasons. The judgment itself was sent later after the EAT requested it but by then it was out of time and the Registrar refused to extend time. The Claimants appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. Having reviewed the written judgment and written reasons the EAT considered that the reasons provided the material necessary to understand the appeal, albeit that a judge would be likely to want to check the judgment before sifting an appeal. The mistake was entirely that of the Claimants’ solicitors as it was clear they had both the written judgment and written reasons and should have been able to upload both. As soon as the claimants’ solicitors were informed that the written judgment had not been submitted it was provided. On balance it was appropriate to grant an extension of time.