In Majekodunmi v City Facilities Management UK Ltd and ors, the EAT has held that an appeal was not validly lodged by an e-mail that included a link to Dropbox instead of attaching the relevant appeal documents.
The ET1s and ET3s were later provided in an acceptable form on 4 and 6 March, whereupon the EAT confirmed that the appeal had been formally presented 10 days out of time. On 11 March, O attempted to submit a second notice of appeal, arguing that this was in time on the basis that the 42-day period began running when the certificate of correction was sent out. The EAT Registrar did not accept this second appeal, stating that the EAT would treat O as having made an application for an extension of time. The Registrar went on to rule that no valid appeal had been instituted in time. O challenged that decision.
The EAT dismissed the appeal against the Registrar’s decision. HHJ Eady QC rejected O’s argument that the certificate of correction reset the 42-day period for appealing. It was clear from the EAT’s judgment in Aziz-Mir v Sainsbury's Supermarkets plc EAT 0537/06 that it is only where a correction is issued by way of a fresh judgment that time starts to run from the date that the corrected judgment was issued. Here, the certificate of correction merely corrected a typographical error and made clear that the original time limit still applied. As for the attempted lodging of appeal documents via Dropbox, HHJ Eady QC rejected O’s argument that the documents had been properly provided in a zipped format, as the guidance allows. The files were hosted on a cloud storage website and the e-mail recipient would have to have internet access in order to be able to access them. The EAT’s guidance made clear that this did not amount to valid service.
Thanks to The ELA for finding this.