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

This case note examines X v Y, Z and Core Education Trust [2025] EAT 128, on whether an in-time Notice of Appeal to the EAT that omits required documents (such as the ET1 or ET3) is a 'minor error' under Rule 37(5) of the EAT Rules 1993 or instead requires an extension of time under Rule 37(1). The EAT held that such an omission may be treated as valid where it is a minor error rectified with reasonable dispatch and causing no prejudice, or alternatively may justify an extension of time (applying Ridley and Davies v BMW), given the distinction between a late Notice of Appeal and an in-time notice with curable defects. The practical guidance is that prompt rectification after notification is critical, the EAT takes a more generous approach to missing-document cases than to late Notices of Appeal, and a premature Notice of Appeal is not fatal provided reasons are supplied when received.

Read the full case note on 42BR →

Key authorities

• X v Y, Z and Core Education Trust [2025] EAT 128
• Ridley v P Fire Protection Ltd [2023] ICR 619
• Davies v BMW [2024] ICR 1109
• Melki v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWCA Civ 74
• Wilson v Ministry of Justice [2025] EAT
• Elhalabi v Avis UKEAT/0281/13