Appeal to Employment Appeal Tribunal - litigant in person's notice of appeal lost in post - application for extension of time in which to appeal - account to be taken of extent of litigant's knowledge of tribunal procedure

Peters v Sat Katar Co Ltd (in liquidation): CA (Lords Justice Peter Gibson, Keene and Sir Martin Nourse): 20 June 2003

An employment tribunal refused an application for a review of its decision and the applicant had 42 days to appeal.

Although she sent her notice of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in good time, it was lost in the post, which she discovered on telephoning the appeal tribunal after time had expired.

She faxed a new copy and sought an extension of time, which the registrar refused, using what appeared to be a standard form of order, including standard recitals clauses.

The applicant's appeal to a judge was unsuccessful, and she appealed.

Jane Russell, solicitor-advocate (instructed by Fisher Meredith) for the applicant.

The respondent employer did not appear and was not represented.

Held, allowing the appeal, that although the judge properly considered the guidance in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65, EAT, reference was not there made to an explanation for delay based on the failure of the postal service to deliver a notice of appeal committed to the post within good time; that a highly relevant factor was whether the applicant acted reasonably in the steps taken to institute an appeal in time; that if circumstances had existed showing that the applicant knew, or ought to have known, that she should have sought confirmation of receipt, that would be relevant, and the position might well be different from this case if the applicant were a solicitor, or a person being legally advised, who might be expected to have knowledge of the practice of the respective tribunals and to have a system for checking receipt of documents; that, generally, it was to be hoped that the information pack, which the employment tribunals provided, with decisions, to litigants in person, should include some guidance as to what a litigant should do if he committed a notice of appeal to the post but heard nothing back; and that the practice of the appeal tribunal, in including standard recitals clauses in its orders which did not take proper account of the particular circumstances of the applicant, needed to be reconsidered.