Mrs L Marshall (Lay representative/Claimant’s partner) For the v Mrs A Ralph (Legal Executive) — 2023

The matter came before Employment Judge Choudry at a Rule 21 hearing on 6 November 2023. The underlying ET1, presented on 31 January 2023, included claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of religion and belief, and other payments. The judgment records that on 18 April 2023 the unfair dismissal complaint had already been struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. When the respondent later failed to present a valid response in time, its response was rejected on 23 June 2023.

Following a telephone preliminary hearing on 4 July 2023, the respondent said it had not received notice of that rejection and was told it had 14 days to apply for reconsideration. The tribunal recorded that an application for extension of time had been made on 5 July 2023, and that the respondent later instructed Croner and made a further application on 2 November 2023 to file a revised response. The explanation given was that the delay arose from internal administrative issues, including a transition in management at the Kidderminster facility and delay in post being forwarded from the registered office.

Applying rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the Presidential Guidance on Rule 21 Judgments, and Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain, the tribunal accepted that the delay was caused by administrative oversight, that the explanation was honest and satisfactory, that the respondent had merit in its grounds of resistance, and that the respondent would suffer more prejudice than the claimant if the extension were refused. The application to extend time was therefore granted and the ET3 filed on 2 November 2023 was accepted, with the procedural consequence that the earlier Rule 21 position was set aside.