Importance of tracking communications in Employment Cases.
An important judgment was handed down in the Court of Appeal on the method of sending claim forms. In the case of Mr A Haydar v Pennine Acute NHS Trust the COA looked at the issues surrounding the submission of a late appeal notice, after an original appeal notice had been lost in the post.
This case is also another case, which in some aspects also distinguishes employment law from the ordinary contract principles and it is important to note this ruling, given the strict approach that appears to have been taken in such case.
The question the COA had to consider was whether they should overrule a refusal of the EAT, to grant an extension of time for service of an Appeal Notice, when the original appeal notice had been lost in the post. The decision centred on the conduct of the parties following the sending of such appeal notice. In the particular case Mr Haydar was sent the judgement with an accompanying covering letter in which directed him to a booklet he could access online. The booklet detailed amongst other things the process and time limits for such appeals and most importantly what to do if no acknowledgement is received from the court. Mr Haydar in this case conceded that he had not accessed the booklet, but had instead relied on the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993.
The court placed great emphasis on this booklet particularly following an earlier judgment in Peters, where Lord Justice Gibson had given judgment along the lines that the courts should help litigants in person by giving them information on the appeals process. The courts then started sending guidance booklets with reserved judgments in bid to eliminate applications such as this one.
Had Mr Haydar accessed the booklet referred to in the covering letter he would have found the explicit wording of what to do in circumstances where he had not had an acknowledgement from the court. The booklet read: "If you have not received an acknowledgement from the EAT within seven days of posting the notice of appeal, you should contact the EAT to confirm they have received your appeal."
The case of Peters had no such information for litigants and the COA rightly held that an extension should be granted in that case. In the instant case, the COA distinguished the case from Peters v Sat Katar Co Ltd, and held that HHJ Peter Clark was right not to extend the time. The reason was that since Peters, the tribunals have issued such guidance booklets (referred to above) which explicitly instructs an appellant to contact the EAT within 7 days of posting the Appeal Notice, if no acknowledgement is received. Giving judgment, the Court of Appeal held that a delay of more than five weeks was significant and there was no good reason for the delay.
The COA caveated its judgment by stating that if the time limit had just been missed, the case for an extension might be stronger.
The emphasis in such cases is to ensure that you act promptly and always follow up such matters.
The full judgment can be found here:
