Introhive UK Ltd

Judgment approved by the court for handing down Castagliola di Fiore and Qadri v Introhive UK Ltd © EAT 2023 [2023] EAT 139 Page 1 Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 139 Case No: EA-2021-001274-JOJ EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 7 November 2023 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : CLAUDIO COSTAGLIOLA DI FIORE Appellants HUMA QADRI - and – INTROHIVE UK LIMITED Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Iain Mitchell KC and Alexandra Sidossis (instructed by direct access) for the Appellants Jen Coyne (instructed by Prettys Solicitors LLP) for the Respondent Appeal from Registrar’s Order Hearing date: 5 October 2023 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Castagliola di Fiore and Qadri v Introhive UK Ltd © EAT 2023 [2023] EAT 139 Page 2 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – time for appealing The claimants sought to appeal from the reserved judgment and reasons of the employment tribunal, arising from a full merits hearing, dismissing their complaints. When presenting their notice of appeal they attached copies of the amended particulars of claim and the amended grounds of resistance, but not copies of the forms ET1 and ET3. The matter predated the amendments to the EAT’s Rules which came into force on 30 September 2023. Accordingly the claimants accepted that the appeal had not been properly instituted until copies of those documents were subsequently sent by them to the EAT, which was more than 42 days after the written judgment and reasons was promulgated. They also accepted that they had not advanced an explanation for the initial omission such as would warrant an extension of time. However, they contended that time for instituting their appeal did not begi…