Davies (Appellant) v BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0089

Parties

Appellant(s)

Claudia Davies

Respondent(s)

BMW (uk) manufacturing LTD

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err by remitting the case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and failing to protect the Appellant’s human rights?

Facts

The Appellant is a litigant in person. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal against her former employer. On 12 July 2021, the Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed her claim. The reasons for the decision were given separately on 21 September 2021. On 2 November 2021, the Appellant filed an application for permission to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). She attached a copy of the ET’s written reasons but not a copy of the judgment. When she was notified of that omission on 22 March 2022, the Appellant promptly sent the ET’s judgment to the EAT. The EAT dismissed her application for permission to appeal on the basis that it was 140 days out of time and refused to grant an extension of time. The Appellant appealed against the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal. On 28 March 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal extended the time for the Appellant to file her application for permission to appeal to the EAT, such that the existing application became timely, and remitted the matter to the EAT to determine the appeal on its merits. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision to remit the case to the EAT. In the meantime, on 9 May 2025, the EAT dismissed the Appellant’s substantive appeal without a hearing.

Date of issue

19 May 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top