Minor errors, major consequences? Clarifying EAT extensions after X v CORE Education Trust

Legal Issue:

In the recent decision of X v Y, Z and Core Education Trust the EAT addressed whether failure to attach required documents to a Notice of Appeal lodged in time amounts to a “minor error” under Rule 37(5) of the EAT Rules 1993 (as amended), or alternatively justifies an extension of time under Rule 37(1).

Key Legal Principle:

The EAT held that an appeal lodged in time but missing the ET1, ET3, or other required documents may be treated as valid where the omission is a “minor error” within Rule 37(5), provided it is rectified with reasonable dispatch and causes no prejudice. Alternatively, applying Ridley and Davies v BMW, the omission can justify an extension of time under Rule 37(1), given the distinction between a late Notice of Appeal and an in-time notice with curable defects.

Practical Implications:

Practitioners should advise clients that prompt rectification after notification is critical. The EAT will adopt a more generous approach to missing-document cases than to late Notices of Appeal. Opposing such applications may be futile absent demonstrable prejudice. Filing a premature NoA is not fatal, provided reasons are supplied when received.

Authorities Cited:

• Ridley v P Fire Protection Ltd [2023] ICR 619 (CA) — distinction between late NoA and missing documents
• Davies v BMW [2024] ICR 1109 — confirmed Ridley approach
• Melki v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWCA Civ 74 — scope of Rule 37(5), “minor errors”
• Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2025] EAT — candid admission of error may be a satisfactory explanation
• Elhalabi v Avis UKEAT/0281/13 — premature NoA may proceed if reasons provided later

3rd Sep 2025

Michael Salter

Call 1999