The appellent lodged a fresh Notice of Appeal under R3(8) after his first application was rejected. On considering the fresh application, the President decided that no further action be taken as the second notice did not constitute a fresh Notice of Appeal for the purpose of Rule 3(8) of the EAT rules but allowed the appellant to argue his case before the court. In this judgment, the judge decided the second notice was a fresh Notice of Appeal, even though the grounds were substantially identical to the original grounds. Thus the appellent was entitled to a Rule 3(10) hearing after rejection of his application under R3(7). The application was dismissed.

To download the full judgment in Word format, click the link below