Parker v West Midlands Trains Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant was employed by Company A from 28 October 2019 until 11 September 2021 and brought a claim for disability discrimination. At an Open Preliminary Hearing before Judge Professor AC Neal on 23 August 2022 the claims were dismissed; written reasons were provided on 14 November 2022. On 10 December 2022 the Appellant submitted a notice of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) enclosing an ET1 but omitting the two-page "Particulars of Claim" that had been attached to the ET1. The EAT notified the Appellant on 13 December 2022 that the appeal was not properly instituted and requested the missing document. The Appellant provided a different document described as "Further and better particulars" on 21 December 2022. The 42-day period for instituting an appeal expired on 28 December 2022. The EAT sent further correspondence on 11 January and 28 March 2023; the Appellant filed the correct Particulars on 28 March 2023 and an application to extend time. The EAT (through an officer) refused the extension on 27 March 2024. The Appellant appealed that refusal to a judge of the EAT. While that appeal was pending, the Court of Appeal handed down Ridley v HB Kirtley (2024). Judge Beard (HHJ Beard) dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the refusal on 13 March 2025. The Appellant then appealed to this court; subsequent Court of Appeal decisions (including Melki v Bouygues (2025)) were considered. On 13 March 2025 and thereafter this court heard argument and allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusals and granting an extension until 29 March 2023 for presenting a valid Notice of Appeal to the EAT; the EAT is to consider the appeal on its merits.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the omission of the Particulars of Claim from the ET1 when lodging the notice of appeal constituted a "minor error" for the purposes of Rule 37(5) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules, such that an extension of time may be granted.
2. Whether, having regard to the explanation for the omission and all the circumstances (including delay and prejudice), it was just to grant an extension of time for lodging the appeal.
3. How the amended Rules (notably Rule 37(5)) and recent authorities (including Ridley and Melki) affect the exercise of discretion to extend time where documents were omitted or there was defective institution of the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The omission was a reasonable mistake by a litigant in person who confused the Particulars of Claim with Further and Better Particulars provided later; the error was inadvertent and honest.
• The Appellant suffered stress, anxiety and depression which affected his knowledge and conduct; the Overriding Objective and fairness require flexibility and an extension to put him on an equal footing with the Respondent.
• Any prejudice to the Respondent would be minimal because disclosure and case preparation were not complete; the Appellant acted diligently once made aware of defects.

Respondent's Arguments

• The appeal was not properly constituted until 29 March 2023, rendering it 91 days out of time; there was no good explanation for the delay and no circumstances justifying an extension.
• The Appellant's initial failure to provide the Particulars and the three-month delay in rectifying the defect caused real prejudice to the Respondent (witness evidence remote from events; wasting of tribunal resources) and justified refusal of an extension.
• The principles in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Green v Mears Ltd require a strict approach; the Appellant had not provided a compelling explanation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by reference to the amended Rules (notably Rule 37(5)), Ridley and Melki. It accepted the Respondent's concession that the omission constituted a "minor error" under the approach in Melki. The court reviewed Judge Beard's reliance on the earlier view that the error was not minor and determined that, in light of Melki, that primary basis for refusal required reconsideration.

The court analysed the sequence of correspondence between the EAT and the Appellant. It emphasised that the EAT's letter of 11 January 2023 gave the Appellant a reasonable impression that the appeal had been properly instituted after the Appellant had responded initially, and that impression was material to assessing the delay between 13 December 2022 and 28 March 2023. The court found the Appellant had acted promptly when later notified and had provided the correct document within hours of the 28 March prompt.

The court weighed prejudice to the Respondent arising from the delay (including witness memory and the need to vacate a listed hearing) against the Appellant's explanation and prompt corrective steps. Although the Appellant's explanation was not, in isolation, a "good excuse" for the initial omission, the court concluded that the overall circumstances (misleading reassurance in the 11 January letter, prompt correction when finally notified, and the character of the omission) meant it was just to exercise the discretion under Rule 37(5) to grant an extension.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The court allowed the appeal against the refusals and ordered that an extension of time be granted so that the Appellant is treated as having a validly instituted appeal as at 29 March 2023.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant is granted the necessary extension until 29 March 2023 to present a valid Notice of Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against the Employment Tribunal decision dismissing the disability discrimination claims, and the EAT is to consider that appeal on its merits. The opinion applies and follows the interpretative approach in Melki and Ridley concerning Rule 37(5); it does not purport to create a broader novel principle beyond that application to the facts of this case.