[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Martin v Fujitsu Services (Engineering Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 380 (18 March 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/380.html Cite as: [2016] EWCA Civ 380

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		18 March 2016

1. MASTER MEACHER: This hearing is a reconsideration of a dismissal order dated 19 February 2016 dismissing an appellant's notice for failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52C.
2. The appellant's notice was filed on 4 September 2015. The Applicant, Mr David Martin, is unrepresented. The Civil Appeals Office notified Mr Martin that the bundle was due to be filed by 23 September 2015 pursuant to the Practice Direction which supplements Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. On the basis that the transcript of judgment was not yet available and on Mr Martin's request, an extension of time was granted until 23 October 2015. The judgment was sent out by the EAT on 14 October. The bundle was not filed within the deadline. The matter was therefore placed in the dismissal list with a final deadline of 27 November.
4. On 27 November Mr Martin sought a further three week extension of time on the basis that he had been providing support to two ill or disabled individuals. The matter was removed from the dismissal list and an extension of time granted until 18 December 2015. Mr Martin was informed that any further extension of time would be unlikely to be granted.
5. The bundle was not filed within the extended deadline. The matter was therefore placed in the dismissal list for a second time. Mr Martin was notified that the matter would be dismissed with costs if the bundle was not filed by 4.00 pm on 22 January 2016 or sufficient reasons provided in writing why that could not be done.
6. On 21 January Mr Martin again wrote to the court requesting a further three week extension of time, this time on the basis of the theft of his bank card details and a burglary at his home. Master Bancroft-Rimmer refused to remove the matter from the dismissal list on the basis that though the events were unfortunate, it was not an adequate reason for failing to file the bundle, which was now four months overdue.
7. The Master's directions were e-mailed to Mr Martin on 28 January. Nothing further was heard from Mr Martin. Therefore, on 19 February, three weeks after the final deadline, I dismissed the case for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.
8. By letter dated 3 March Mr Martin requested an oral hearing, which was listed for today. At the hearing Mr Martin has handed up a bundle which appears to contain all the outstanding or all the required documents apart from a skeleton argument and an index and the documents need to be appropriately paginated.
9. Mr Martin has explained today some rather unfortunate circumstances that he has faced in the last six weeks or so. I accept that he has clearly had a very distressing time, including some quite substantial injuries to his face. I can see that that has affected his ability to address his mind to providing a bundle.
10. However, it is only on the basis that he has provided a bundle at the hearing today that I am willing to set aside my dismissal order and only if by 4.00 pm today Mr Martin is able to file a fully compliant bundle containing, in addition to the documents already in the bundle, a skeleton argument and an index which fully reflects pagination of all the documents contained in the bundle.
11. If he is able to do that, then I am content to set aside my dismissal order. If he fails to do that, my dismissal order will stand.