Extension of Time Granted Where CEO Was Unable to Focus Due to ADHD and Depression
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has granted an extension of time for an employer to appeal against a judgment in default. The employer had missed the original deadline because its CEO's mental health meant he had been unable to focus on the proceedings.
Employee Awarded Compensation As Employer Missed Appeal Deadline
Mr O'Daly was employed by MTN as its Operations Director from 2012 until his dismissal in September 2019. Following his dismissal, the parties entered into ACAS early conciliation, which was unsuccessful. Mr O'Daly lodged Tribunal claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal in January 2020.
MTN missed the deadline to respond to the claims. This was because the paperwork remained unopened on the desk of the CEO and managing director, Mr Tims. By the time the paperwork was delivered to MTN's office, the office had been closed in anticipation of the approaching COVID-19 lockdown. Mr Tims was also focused on dealing with a cashflow crisis, and other personal and professional implications of the pandemic.
The Tribunal issued a judgment in default against MTN, awarding Mr O'Daly over £94,000 in compensation. MTN did not find out about Mr O'Daly's claims until Mr O'Daly's solicitors contacted its solicitors following the judgment.
The Late Appeal
MTN sought to appeal against the judgment in default, but submitted its response late. The deadline was 4pm on 8 June 2020. Mr Tims submitted the appeal later that evening, so as the 4pm deadline was missed, the appeal was deemed to have been filed one day late.
MTN applied for an extension of time. It argued that due to Mr Tims' ADHD and depression, he was 'hyperfocused' on other personal and professional matters at the time of the litigation. Hyperfocus is a concept whereby a person focuses on one thing to the exclusion of all else, even matters that are urgent or important. Given Mr Tims' state of mind during the pandemic and in the run up to the appeal deadline, he was unable to focus his mind on the claim until the last minute.
Employment Appeal Tribunal Granted Extension of Time
Mr Tims had submitted evidence relating to his mental health and the personal and professional issues he was dealing with. He also gave evidence about the difficulties he was experiencing in getting hold of his usual medication at the time, due to the COVID-19 lockdown. He accepted MTN's solicitors had been trying to get hold of him, and that he failed to instruct them in time to meet the deadline.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) accepted Mr Tims' evidence. He suffers from ADHD and depression, and the effect of those impairments was a substantial part of the explanation of why the appeal was submitted late. It was not necessary for Mr Tims to be wholly inactive during the period in question in order to be suffering the effects of his conditions. There was also no compelling reason not to grant the extension. Had the appeal been submitted significantly out of time this might not have been the case.
Should the Appeal Have Been Left to One Individual to Action?
Whilst this case is fact specific, there are some practical learning points for employers, particularly in small businesses where the majority of control rests with one person. It might be appropriate to ensure a deputy also has authority to instruct the organisation's solicitors. This could be on a permanent or temporary basis, and in respect of defined matters only if desired.
