Mulumba (Appellant) v Partners Group (UK) Limited and another (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0038

Parties

Appellant(s)

Mwika Mulumba

Respondent(s)

(1) Partners Group (UK) Limited (2) Partners Group (USA) Inc

Issue

Ms Mulumba filed applications to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against two Employment Tribunal judgments late. Should the Employment Appeal Tribunal Registrar have granted her an extension of time?

Facts

The appellant, Ms Mulumba, was formerly employed by the respondents, Partners Group (UK) Limited and Partners Group (USA) Inc. In July 2018 she was dismissed. Ms Mulumba then brought proceedings against the respondents in the Employment Tribunal on a number of grounds (direct discrimination on the grounds of disability, race and sex, discriminatory dismissal, harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal and ordinary unfair dismissal). The Employment Tribunal proceedings were complex because of a jurisdiction dispute and produced a number of judgments. Ms Mulumba ultimately succeeded on her claim for ordinary unfair dismissal but her other claims were dismissed. Ms Mulumba sought to appeal against three Employment Tribunal judgments to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”). The deadline for Ms Mulumba to appeal against the Employment Judge’s judgment on preliminary issues (“Appeal 1”) was 29 November 2021. She filed her application to appeal at 23.49pm on that date. The EAT Rules deem applications filed after 16:00 to be filed on the following day therefore Ms Mulumba was deemed to have filed her application late. The deadline for Ms Mulumba to appeal against the Employment Judge’s judgment on the merits of her claim (“Appeal 2”) was 15 February 2022. Ms Mulumba filed her application to appeal against that judgment before 16:00 on 15 February 2022. However, she failed to attach some of the documents required by the EAT rules (the judgment under appeal, and the ET1 and ET3 forms). She stated this was because the documents were large and she had not been able to compress them to an appropriate size. Per the EAT Rules, an appeal application is not complete until all the necessary documents are provided. The remaining documents were provided after 16:00 on 17 February. Therefore, Ms Mulumba was deemed to have filed her application three days late on 18 February. Ms Mulumba filed her application to appeal against the Employment Judge’s judgment on the remedy (“Appeal 3”) on time. Ms Mulumba applied the EAT Registrar for extensions of time in respect of her two late applications to appeal. Ms Mulumba explained these delays with reference to her mental health, the difficulties she faced as a litigant in person, and her lack of professional software which made it difficult to process large documents. The EAT Registrar declined to grant Ms Mulumba an extension. Ms Mulumba appealed the Registrar’s decision to an EAT judge. The judge upheld the Registrar’s decision. Ms Mulumba then appealed the judge’s decisions to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision to refuse an extension of time. Ms Mulumba now applies for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

27 March 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top