London Borough of Tower Hamlets and others
Decision Overview
Case Summary
The appellant appealed a Registrar's refusal to extend time for requesting a rule 3(10) hearing in respect of an EAT rule 3(7) letter. The appellant claimed she was unaware of the rule 3(7) letter and cited mental and physical ill health as excuses for the delay. The EAT found that while the appellant had health issues, the evidence did not support that her failure to act was caused by ill health. The appeal was dismissed as the underlying appeal had become academic because the substantive tribunal claims had been dismissed at a rule 47 hearing that the appellant had not appealed.
Why this outcome?
academicThe appellant's failure to respond to the rule 3(7) letter was not adequately excused by her mental and physical ill health, and in any event the underlying appeal had become academic because the substantive tribunal claims had been dismissed at a rule 47 hearing which the appellant did not appeal, making any decision to strike out the responses moot.
Claim Types
Key Issues
- •Extension of time for rule 3(10) hearing
- •Whether appeal was arguable under rule 3(7)
- •Whether underlying appeal had become academic due to dismissal of substantive claims at rule 47 hearing
- •Claimant's failure to act on EAT correspondence
- •Claimant's mental and physical ill health as excuse for default
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
She pursued multiple complaints under the Equality Act 2010 and also complained of unfair dismissal, including by reason of having made protected disclosures.
complaints under the Equality Act 2010 and also complained of unfair dismissal, including by reason of having made protected disclosures.
Decision Text
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down QRS v London Borough of Tower Hamlets © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 60 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 60 Case No: EA-2024-000153-AS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 22 April 2026 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : QRS Appellant - and – LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS AND OTHERS Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Appellant in person Fergus McCombie (instructed by LB Tower Hamlets Legal Dept) for the Respondent Appeal from Registrar’s Order Hearing date: 11 March 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court for handing down QRS v London Borough of Tower Hamlets © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 60 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – extension of time for seeking a rule 3(10) hearing The claimant in the employment tribunal appealed from a decision refusing to strike out the responses to her claims. The EAT emailed her a rule 3(7) letter notifying her that a judge was of the opinion that the substantive appeal was not arguable. She only requested a rule 3(10) hearing many weeks out of time, and the Registrar refused to extend her time. She appealed from that order to an EAT judge. The appellant was not aware of the rule 3(7) letter, or of a further email from the EAT referring to it, until her attention was specifically drawn to them during a phone call to the EAT. It was also accepted that she had mental and physical ill health during the relevant period. However, the overall evidence did not support the conclusion that her failure to identify, and act on, either of those emails, over the course of the period in question, was caused by her ill health, such as to amount to a good excuse for the default. In addition, ...
Case Facts
- Claimant
- QRS
- Case Number
- [2026] EAT 60
- Appeal result
- Appeal outcome unclear
- Tribunal
- Employment Appeal Tribunal
- Level
- Appeal
- Decision Date
- 22 April 2026
- Published
- 22 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- His Honour Judge Auerbach
- Representation
- Litigant in person