High Court (QBD) 18th January 2000, reported at Times Law Reports 7th March 2000.
NOTES

Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Eastwood Care Homes (Ilkeston) Ltd & ors, High Court (QBD) 18th January 2000, reported at Times Law Reports 7th March 2000.


This case concerns the approach to be taken by the courts under the Civil Procedure rules when deciding whether to allow an application for an extension of time, in this case for service of a notice of appeal. Although the case has no direct relevance to time limits under the Employment Tribunal rules of procedure (see Procedure of Employment Tribunals/2001 rules/rule 17 - Extension of time ) or under the EAT rules (see Employment Appeal Tribunal/time-limit for appeals to EAT ), it would be strange if employment tribunals which are meant to be less formal than the courts were to interpret their rules of procedure more strictly than the courts interpret theirs.

Under the new court rules it is provided that "except where these Rules provide otherwise, the court may extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or court order (even if an application for extension is made after the time for compliance has expired)" (rule 3.1(2))

The case noted above concerned an application for filing a notice of appeal in a VAT case out of time. The solicitors for Customs & Excise had failed to serve the notice until 3 days after the time allowed had expired because of an oversight caused by pressure of work, In pre-Woolf reform days, the chances of a court granting leave to file out of time in such circumstances would have been slim and the only legal redress available to the unhappy litigant would have been to sue the solicitors for negligence.

However applying rule 3.1(2) of the new 1998 Civil Procedure rules the court in this case decided to allow HM Customs to file the appeal out of time on the basis that in all the circumstances this would be just. Relevant circumstances included that the delay was short, no prejudice was caused by it and the appeal was concerned with whether EC law had priority over domestic legislation.

See notes on Time-limits generally.

FINISH>
prepared Mar2000.