Ms. F. Almazedi, Solicitor v Mr B Hendley, Consultant — 2021

The claimant presented claims dated 23 September 2020 for disability discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal by reason of raising a public interest disclosure, health and safety detriment, and automatic unfair dismissal under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent, Rowley Care Limited, sought an extension of time to lodge its ET3 shortly before the preliminary hearing, saying that a new manager was dealing with the matter and had difficulty obtaining information for the response.

The tribunal applied rule 20 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and the overriding objective under rule 2, and referred to Kwik Save Stores Limited v Swain, Pendragon Plc (trading as CD Bramall Bradford) v Copus, and Office Equipment Systems Limited v Hughes. It accepted that the respondent and its legal advisers were aware of the proceedings, but held that the three-month delay was unsatisfactorily explained because no holding response or timely application for more time had been made before the deadline expired.

In weighing prejudice, the tribunal accepted that refusal of the extension meant the respondent could not contest liability, but noted that the respondent could still make representations on remedy if the claimant succeeded. It also recorded that the claimant had been prejudiced by the delay and by not knowing the respondent's position for preparation for the preliminary and substantive hearings. The tribunal concluded that the application was not in the interests of justice, refused it, and debarred the respondent from participating in the proceedings save as to remedy. No monetary award was made in this judgment.