The EAT refused to extend time for lodging an appeal against a decision of the ET. Under the relevant rule time starts to run where the ET's judgment and/or the written reasons are "sent to the parties". In both the cases they were erroneously sent to a former representative of the party wishing to appeal: in a nutshell, the question was whether they were nevertheless "sent to the parties" for the purpose of the rule, and, if they were, what approach should be taken to extending time.

The appeal was allowed although for different reasons. McCombe LJ held that the document containing the written reasons is only "sent to the parties" if it is sent to each party, or at any rate the relevant party, at the address communicated to the tribunal by or on behalf of that party as being his or her address for service. Underhill LJ (with whom Bean LJ agreed), however, held that a document is "sent to the parties" if the tribunal sends copies out addressed to each party, even if the address is wrong, or even if the document is sent to an addressee who does not have authority to receive it.