The Claimant was dismissed and he claimed wrongful and unfair dismissal. The Respondent did not enter a response and judgment was entered for the Claimant. The Respondent claimed that the claim form had not been received, having been posted to the Respondent's registered office just before the office closed due to the Covid pandemic lockdown. The Respondent also argued that the health of the CEO was relevant. The Respondent sought to appeal the rule 21 judgment which was refused because it was out of time and a time extension was also refused. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The application for an extension of time relied upon what were said to be the effects of the Respondent’s CEO’s mental impairments of ADHD and depression. Applying the guidance in J v K [2019] ICR 815 to the particular evidence presented at the hearing in the EAT, including medical evidence and the live evidence of the CEO on which he was cross-examined: (a) the CEO did have the mental impairments claimed; (b) on the balance of probabilities the impact of them was a material and substantial part of the explanation for why the appeal was instituted late; and (c) there were no compelling countervailing reason nevertheless not to extend time. Time was therefore extended.