The Excessive Courtroom has recognised that it has a discretion to increase strict statutory deadlines in circumstances the place the courtroom itself, not the appellant, is answerable for the attraction being introduced late. The difficulty arose within the case of Sikander Grocers Restricted v Secretary of State for the Residence Division [2026] EWHC 883 (KB), which concerned an attraction by an employer in opposition to a Residence Workplace civil penalty discover.
Background
On 20 December 2023 Sikander Grocers Restricted (SGL) obtained a civil penalty discover requiring cost of £15,000 for using an unlawful employee in breach of part 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. SGL lodged an objection below part 16 of the 2006 Act, which was rejected by discover on 30 January 2024. Part 17(4B) gives that an attraction to the County Courtroom should be introduced inside 28 days of the discover of rejection, which on this case fell on 26 February 2024.
SGL’s attraction paperwork have been filed in particular person at Luton County Courtroom by a trainee solicitor. An usher refused to take cost of the attraction payment by card however accepted a cheque within the different, and confirmed that it was appropriately drawn. The trainee additionally despatched an electronic mail inside enterprise hours confirming the identical and attaching the attraction paperwork.
The paperwork have been subsequently returned to SGL’s solicitors with a letter, dated 26 February 2024, stating that the cheque had not been appropriately drawn (it mentioned ‘My HMCTS’ relatively than ‘HMCTS’). The solicitors supplied a appropriately drawn cheque on 29 February 2024 and the attraction software was stamped by the courtroom on 1 March 2024.
The County Courtroom dismissed the attraction and a subsequent software to put aside on no-nonsense jurisdictional grounds. An attraction was deemed introduced when the suitable payment was paid, which on this case was 1 March 2024. SGL’s attraction was subsequently out of time, and there was no discretion on the face of the 2006 Act to increase the 28-day deadline. SGL utilized to the Excessive Courtroom to put aside the order.
The Excessive Courtroom determination
There was no dispute between the events on the information. The Excessive Courtroom agreed with the County Courtroom that, strictly talking, SGL’s attraction had been introduced out of time. A slender discretion arises in distinctive circumstances the place parliament can not have supposed for somebody to be excluded from the attraction course of. It could additionally come up the place excluding them would breach their proper to a good listening to below Article 6 of the European Conference on Human Rights.
The courtroom reviewed the related case regulation wherein distinctive circumstances gave rise to such a discretion, typically however not solely in an extradition context. In Yadly Advertising and marketing Co Ltd v Secretary of State for the Residence Division [2016] EWCA Civ 1143, for instance, it was held that the deadline to attraction the civil penalty discover could possibly be prolonged by someday the place the courtroom workplace closed on the final day of the limitation interval.
In different circumstances, extra prosaic circumstances similar to in poor health well being, stress or being unable to pay the courtroom payment have been held to not be distinctive.
Permitting SGL’s attraction, the Excessive Courtroom discovered that distinctive circumstances existed on this case. It was the County Courtroom itself which ‘thwarted [SGL’s] correct and cheap makes an attempt to convey the attraction in time’. It did so via its ushers by wrongly refusing to just accept cost by card after which – wrongly once more – accepting that the cheque was appropriately drawn.
Parliament didn’t intend to exclude an appellant similar to SGL from the attraction course of in circumstances the place the courtroom was the ‘reason behind the operative error’. Nor would such an end result comport with Article 6.
Commentary
Two very current Courtroom of Attraction choices are value mentioning right here: Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey [2026] EWCA Civ 215 and Eskander v Basic Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 372. Each verify {that a} declare or an attraction is deemed ‘introduced’ when the declare type or attraction discover is delivered to the courtroom. Any appellant who does what the trainee solicitor did on this case could have ‘introduced’ their attraction in regulation if they’re throughout the deadline.
However, this case is a helpful reminder that statutory deadlines usually are not strictly absolute the place there are distinctive circumstances which aren’t the fault of the appellant. This case is one instance, however the discretion could come up in different fact-specific circumstances.
Helpfully, the Excessive Courtroom additionally confirmed that though it is going to be useful for an appellant to indicate that they did the whole lot of their energy to convey the attraction in time (because the ‘completely innocent’ SGL did on this case), such ‘procedural perfection’ will not be obligatory for a discretion to come up.
