- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mulumba v Partners Group (UK) Ltd & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant brought multiple Employment Tribunal (ET) claims against the Respondent. The ET issued several decisions, including a preliminary judgment sent on 18 October 2021 (judgment 1) and a merits judgment sent on 4 January 2022 with written reasons (judgment 2). The Appellant sought to appeal those ET decisions. Two appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) were central: Appeal 1 (against judgment 1) and Appeal 2 (against judgment 2). A further complaint drawn from the Appellant's grounds was assigned as Appeal 3 (against a judgment sent on 24 January 2022). The Registrar of the EAT refused the Appellant's applications for extensions of time to bring Appeal 1 and Appeal 2. The Appellant appealed those refusals to a judge of the EAT, who dismissed the appeals. Permission to appeal to this court was granted. This court heard the appeal and dismissed it, concluding the EAT and the Judge did not err in law.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the EAT and the Judge erred in refusing to extend time for lodging Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 under the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 and associated Practice Direction.
- Whether the decision in Ridley v HSBC Kirtley (t/a Queen's Court Business Centre) [2024] EWCA Civ 884; [2025] ICR 441 (Ridley) materially affected the correctness of the EAT's approach in this case (in particular the distinction between appeals lodged out of time and appeals lodged in time but missing required documents).
- Whether Appeal 2 was properly instituted within the time limit required by rule 3(1) and rule 3(3) of the Rules, given the Appellant's failure to supply the ET judgment and pleadings in the required form and by the required time.
- Whether rule 37(5) (inserted by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Amendment) Rules 2023) could be relied on, and whether the Appellant's omission (if any) amounted to a "minor error" permitting extension under rule 37(5).
- Whether the Appellant's personal circumstances (litigant in person, mental health, IT difficulties, and prejudice arguments) provided a good explanation or exceptional circumstances justifying extension under the established principles governing extensions of time.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The deadline for Appeal 2 ran from transmission of the written reasons for the separate ET document (judgment 3), so the deadline was later than 15 February 2022 and Appeal 2 was in time.
- If Appeal 2 was out of time, it was nonetheless properly instituted on 15 February 2022 because the Appellant contemporaneously explained why supporting documents were not attached and provided them shortly thereafter.
- The Appellant's mental health, status as a litigant in person, IT difficulties, the Respondent's conduct and any prejudice weighed in favour of exercising the discretion to extend time.
- The Appellant contended the Amendment Rules (rule 37(5)) and the decision in Melki supported relief for errors rectified promptly.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Respondent contended Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 were out of time; Appeal 1 was lodged after the deadline and Appeal 2 was not properly instituted because the ET judgment and pleadings were not provided within the time limit.
- The Appellant's contemporaneous explanations for not attaching documents were insufficient; explanations must be genuine and amount to a good explanation (relying on Richardson).
- The Appellant had not substantially complied with rule 3(1) within the time limit so Ridley did not assist; any error was not a "minor error" under rule 37(5).
- The Judge and Registrar had applied the correct legal principles and properly exercised their discretion in refusing extensions of time.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ridley v HSBC Kirtley (t/a Queen's Court Business Centre) [2024] EWCA Civ 884; [2025] ICR 441 | Recognises a legal distinction between appeals lodged out of time and appeals lodged within time but missing required documents; guidance on substantial compliance with rule 3(1). | Court considered Ridley but concluded it did not apply because the Appellant did not substantially comply with rule 3(1) for Appeal 1 or Appeal 2; Ridley therefore did not alter the outcome. |
| Melki v Bouygues E & S Contracting UK Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 585; [2025] ICR 1348 | Interprets rule 37(5): whether an error is "minor" is assessed by reference to compliance with rule 3(1). | Court proceeded on the basis Melki permits application of rule 37(5) to appeals lodged before the Amendment Rules and assumed its principles as relevant; nonetheless held the Appellant's omission was not a minor error. |
| Richardson v Extreme Roofing [2023] ICR 328 | Explains that contemporaneous explanations for not providing documents must be genuine and amount to a good explanation; Practice Direction context. | Cited and applied: the Judge used Richardson to assess the Appellant's explanations and found they were not a good explanation for failing to lodge the judgment and pleadings in time. |
| United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65 | Sets out core principles for exercising discretion to extend time: principled exercise, stricter enforcement for appeal time limits, requirement for a full, honest and acceptable explanation, and that extensions are exceptional. | Court summarised these guiding principles and applied them in assessing whether to extend time; treated them as central to the discretionary exercise. |
| Jurkowska v Hlmad Limited [2008] ICR 841 | Confirms Abdelghafar guidance; example where prompt correction of a venial mistake justified extension. | Used as authority that strict approach is not inflexible; Court noted circumstances where correction promptly made can justify extension, but distinguished the present facts. |
| Green v Mears Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 751; [2019] ICR 771 | Affirms the existing approach to extensions of time in the EAT and rejects a modified (less strict) approach. | Cited as binding precedent: court noted it remains bound by Green v Mears and that the EAT's stricter approach stands. |
| J v K [2019] EWCA Civ 5; [2019] ICR 815 | Mental health can be relevant to delay but the disability must relate to the reason for the late appeal. | Cited to show that mental health evidence is relevant only insofar as it explains the failure to comply with time limits; applied in rejecting the Appellant's mental health explanation as insufficiently connected to the specific failure to lodge on time. |
| Davies v BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 356; [2025] IRLR 515 | Summarises authorities considered in Ridley and the main conclusions regarding extensions of time. | Court referenced the summary in Davies as providing context for the authorities and principles applied to the present appeals. |
| BPP Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2016] EWCA Civ 121; [2016] 1 WLR 1915 | Discussed in related jurisprudence about adopting modified approaches in tribunal time-extension contexts (Denton principles discussion). | Referenced in explaining the court's refusal elsewhere to adopt a modified approach; not applied to change the EAT's established approach in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded from the applicable Rules (Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993) and the Practice Direction. It analysed (a) whether the appeals were instituted within the time limits set by rule 3(3) and rule 3(1), (b) whether Ridley changed the legal approach, and (c) whether any omission amounted to a "minor error" permitting extension under rule 37(5) (as interpreted in Melki).
The court accepted the factual findings that Appeal 1 was received at 23:49 on the final day and treated as received the next day under the Rules/Practice Direction; that Appeal 1 was therefore out of time; and that the Registrar and the Judge had properly required a full, honest and acceptable explanation for that delay and had not been satisfied by the Appellant's reasons. In relation to Appeal 2, the court accepted that the Appellant lodged Form EAT 1 (and, by doubt, grounds) on the last day but did not lodge the ET judgment, ET1 and ET3 in the required form and within the time limit; these were provided only after the expiry of the time limit and were thus treated as received the following day.
The court applied Richardson to require that any contemporaneous explanation for not providing documents must be genuine and amount to a good explanation. It found the Appellant's explanations (size of files, IT difficulty, mental health) did not explain why the documents could not have been lodged properly within the time limit or why the problems were suddenly overcome only after the time limit. The court concluded the Appellant had not substantially complied with rule 3(1) for Appeal 2, so Ridley (which applies where there is substantial compliance) did not assist. The court further held that even if an "error" had occurred, it was not a "minor error" within rule 37(5) because the missing judgment/combined judgment-and-reasons document was essential and its non-provision was not minor on these facts.
Finally, the court reviewed the Judge's exercise of discretion under rule 37(1) and found no legal error: the Judge had asked the correct questions, considered the Appellant's circumstances, and legitimately refused to extend time. The court noted that Form EAT 1 might be misleading about whether an explanation can substitute for lodging a judgment when the judgment and reasons are combined, and suggested the EAT consider revising the form; but that observation did not alter the outcome.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Holding: The court dismissed the Appellant's challenge to the Registrar's and the Judge's refusals to extend time for Appeal 1 and Appeal 2. The EAT did not materially err in law, and Ridley did not apply because the Appellant had not substantially complied with rule 3(1) within the time limit.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Registrar's refusals and the Judge's orders are upheld and the Appellant's appeals remain out of time. The court noted no change to the governing principles for extensions of time was required on these facts; it observed that Form EAT 1 could be misleading and might be revised, but the decision did not establish a new precedent beyond application of existing authorities (Ridley, Melki, Richardson, Abdelghafar and related cases) to the facts presented.
Alert