Many appeal cases are not finally resolved by Employment Appeal Tribunal. So when running an appeal case, you need to consider the possibility of it returning to the tribunal. Lawyers describe this as a case being remitted.

The best way of deciding whether the EAT will remit a case is to consider what decisions they are in a position to make.

If the only decisions are legal ones, about what the applicable law is, the appeal court will be able to make these decisions and issue a final judgment. If there will be need to be further findings of fact, the EAT is unlikely to be able to reach useful conclusions. They did not hear the original evidence and will generally not hear evidence during the appeal hearing. They are simply not able to make sensible decisions about which witnesses to believe or whose testimony to accept.

If a case is likely to be remitted, it is important to remember that what matters is the final outcome of the case, not just the outcome of the appeal.

This means that some appeals should not be started, even where the tribunal has erred in law, because the chances of victory in the remitted hearing are remote. It is not sensible to go through the stress of continuing the litigation if, after the appeal and a rehearing, you are going to be left exactly where you started.

It also means that you should give some thought to what will happen once you get back to the tribunal. In some cases it will matter very much which ground of appeal you win on, because one ground is more likely to give you victory in the tribunal than another.

You should also consider whether the EAT will send the case back to the same tribunal or to a different one – and what you want them to do. This needs to be done carefully. Appellants will normally want a new tribunal. After all, the old one decided against them. The EAT, on the other hand, will be reluctant to restart a case from scratch without a good reason.

Finally, bear in in mind that a successful appeal is often a decision point on settlement. People often do not want to return to the tribunal. And appeals often clarify the issues to the point that settlement becomes possible. It is worth being ready to respond to an offer from the other side or to make one yourself, once you have the decision.

Mushett v London Borough of Hounslow gives valuable guidance on when the EAT will extend the deadline for lodging an appeal.

The EAT laid out a series of principles that it would apply. In summary these are:

• It is in the parties and the publics interest that the result of litigation should final and certain. This means that the approach to time limits should be stricter on appeal that at first instance.
• An extension of time will only be granted if the EAT is satisfied that there is a full honest and acceptable explanation for the delay
• The 42 day time limit will only be relaxed in rare and exceptional cases. There is no excuse, even for an unrepresented party, for ignorance of the time limit
• The EAT will consider the length of the delay and be aware of the possibility of procedural abuse or intentional default
• The EAT will look at the whole period during which the appeal could have been lodged. This means that time will not be automatically extended if the appellant can show that it was impossible to present the appeal during the last week. The EAT might conclude that the appeal should have been presented during the first five weeks of the period. The decision will depend on the facts of each case.

The judgment also sets out the facts of the joined cases. It is worth noting that three of the four appeals were rejected. This underlines the key point to take from this case: make absolutely certain that any appeal is lodged well within time. The EAT’s approach to the deadline to appeal is strict and it will normally be impossible to persuade them to allow a late appeal.

Even if you are encountering problems, for example, in formulating the legal argument or obtaining legal advice, it is much better to put in a mediocre appeal, than to risk missing the deadline. It will be easier to improve a rushed appeal – even to the extent of putting in new grounds – than it would be to get permission for a late appeal.

One final note, always remember that an appeal has only been validly lodged if it contains all the documents required by s3 Employment Appeal Rules. The easiest way to make sure of this is to use the appeal form provided by the EAT, which contains a checklist of the required documents. An appeal without the correct documents attached will not be valid and, unless the mistake can be corrected within the normal time limit, will be considered late.

Mushett v London Borough of Hounslow

In Secretary of State for Health & ors v Rance & ors [2007] IRLR 665, HHJ McMullen reviews the authorities on when the EAT will be prepared to entertain a new point of law or permit a concession to be withdrawn, and sets out at paragraph 50 of his judgment the principles that he draws from them, as well as finding 3 new relevant factors in Rance itself.

Unfortunately, there is no attempt in the judgment to reconcile the sometimes contradictory principles listed. The true rule would still seem to be that the EAT will allow new points of law to be argued if it feels like it.