An interesting case challenging the use of technology in an increasingly technical world – Majekodunmi v City Facilities Management.
We are grateful to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Update and to Naomi Cunningham Outer Temple Chambers for preparing this case.
The Claimant’s employment tribunal claim had been struck out, and he sought to appeal. On the penultimate day of the 42 day time for appealing, his representative emailed the grounds of appeal and some of the mandatory supporting documents to the EAT. On the last day, instead of sending the remaining documents as attachments to one or more emails, as directed in the relevant EAT guidance (set out in leaflet T440), she sent a link to a zip file on Dropbox.
HHJ Eady agreed with the Registrar that the appeal had not been validly lodged within the 42-day period. The difference between an email attachment and a Dropbox link was clear. In one case, the EAT would have possession of the attachment as soon as it had collected the email - even if it then lost its internet connection. In the other, someone would need to follow the link to an external location and save a copy of the document before the EAT would have possession of it.
