The claimant brought an appeal against a liability judgment but the first respondent, Dragon Cat Cafe, was placed into voluntary liquidation in April 2025. The appeal was allowed to proceed on five grounds by an order made in August 2025. The order required the respondents to file an answer within 28 days but due to an administrative error, it was initially served only on the first respondent's insolvency practitioners, not the second and third respondents. Their answers were consequently served late so they sought to extend time.

As HHJ Tayler states the issue in this appeal is whether the EAT should adopt the same strict approach to granting an extension of time to submit an answer to an appeal as it does to the submission of the appeal itself. He agrees with the reasoning in Slingsby and concludes at [30]

"that in light of the initial failure to serve the appeal on the second and third respondents, the short period of delay and lack of prejudice to the claimant in respect of this appeal sufficiently overcomes the matters relied on [the appellant] so that the interests of justice favour the granting of an extension of time. In addition, the appeal raises points that would benefit from proper argument if possible."