The Claimant, a litigant in person, was dismissed by the Respondent by reason of conduct. He brought claims in the ET for unfair dismissal and breach of contract; the ET found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair in two respects, and so the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded, but it dismissed the breach of contract claim. Two days before the deadline for submitting a properly instituted appeal, the Claimant hand-delivered his Notice of Appeal and accompanying documentation to the EAT. However, three weeks later, the EAT administration informed the Claimant, by phone and email, that a page of the Grounds of Resistance which formed part of the response to his original claim was missing. The Claimant sent the missing page to the EAT the next day, but the Registrar concluded that the documentation was not complete until that date and so, in accordance with the EAT's Rules and Practice Direction, the appeal was not properly instituted in time; further, the Registrar declined to extend time, on the basis that the Claimant had not provided an explanation that amounted to a good excuse. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT held that the Registrar had correctly concluded that the appeal had not been properly instituted in time; however, it allowed the appeal in respect of the Registrar's decision not to extend time. Accordingly, the appeal would be treated as having been presented in time and could go forward to the next stage.