The EAT has handed down judgment in Slingsby v Griffith Smith Solicitors. This case is authority for the proposition that whilst the strict Abdelghafar principles do not apply to the grant of an extension of time for the delivery of an Answer, the strict approach to time limits does apply to any Cross-Appeal.
In this case, the Respondent’s Answer (which included a cross-appeal) was lodged at the EAT one day late. The Registrar granted an extension of time to cover the late filing of the Answer and Cross-Appeal on the basis that the EAT takes a more liberal view in relation to time limits imposed upon respondents who wish to cross appeal than in relation to the institution of initial appeals.
The Appellant appealed to HHJ Burke QC, who held that the strict approach applied to cross-appeals. Consequently, the outcome of the appeal was that the Answer, lodged one day out of time, was permitted to stand; but the Cross-Appeal was not.
[Thanks to Daniel Matovu of 2 Temple Gardens, who represented the successful appellant, for providing this case summary]