MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT):
This is an appeal against the Registrar's order not extending time for the lodging of a Notice of Appeal which was otherwise out of turn. Looking briefly at the chronology, there was an IT1, on the 30 th September 1998, lodged by Mr Ashraf against Francis W Birkett & Sons Ltd.
The Notice of Appearance on the Respondent's part was dated 26 th October, and then there was a hearing on 6 th May when Mr Ashraf was represented by an AEEU representative. On 24 th May, the decision was sent to the parties. The claim for unfair dismissal had been withdrawn and the claims for racial discrimination and disability discrimination failed. That having been sent to the parties on 24 th May, the six weeks expired on 5 th July. On the 6 th July, the Notice of Appeal was received by the EAT. On 26 th July, there was an application for an extension of time. On 11 th August the Respondent's solicitors opposed the extension and on the 28 th August, the Appellant Mr Ashraf, by his advisers, answered that opposition. On 8 th September, the Registrar refused the extension and on 13 th September the Appellant, Mr Ashraf, appealed.
The matter comes before me today, and Mr Courtney Hay of the Northern Complainant Aid Fund has represented Mr Ashraf. In their letter of 26 th July, the Northern Complainant Aid Fund, had said of Mr Ashraf and his application, the following:-
And then the letter continued, written by Mr Hay:-
And, over the page:-
Well, there was the case for an extension of time. As against that, Addleshaw Booth & Co, acting for Francis W Birkett & Sons on 11 th August said:-
But the Appellant, by way of the Northern Complaint Aid Fund's letter of 28 th August, countered that. They said in that letter, again written by Mr Hay, that Mr Ashraf:-
And then a little a little later:-
Well, I have considered the well-known Abdelghafar case, and I do regard this matter as close to the border. But, for all that, the matter was only 1 day late. It could be argued - I am not sure how relevant it would be - that one of the 42 days was in any event lost to the Appellant because there was bank holiday on 31 st June. The merits, to the limited extent to which they are to be taken into account, can be commented on as being not obviously and manifestly hopeless. Mr Ashraf does seem to have suffered from being passed from pillar to post seeking advice in relation to an appeal and this is a case where he did need assistance because English is not his first language. There is no fault of his own, it would seem, in the delays before the matter came to the hands of the Northern Complainant Aid Fund. There is no claim of prejudice, on the part of the Respondents, save, of course, the inevitable prejudice that they would have the prospect that an appeal against their interest could be struck out or fail without consideration of the merits.
On balance, I think this is a proper case in which the short time extension necessary to validate the appeal, should be permitted. I allow the appeal and extend time for the lodging of the Notice of Appeal to the seventh of July.