Miss Leanne Talbot v Mr Paul Griffiths trading as BS Embroidery Plus — 2023

At a preliminary hearing in Bristol by video on 22 August 2023, Employment Judge C H O'Rourke considered the respondent's application for an extension of time to present a Response after a Notice of 'Response not Received' had been issued. The respondent said that an advance copy of the ET1 had been passed to Peninsula on 15 February 2023, but that due to an email server issue they did not receive it, and that they only became aware of the claim on 17 May 2023 after the formal ET1 had also been forwarded.

Applying Rule 2 and the guidance in Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain and ors, the tribunal granted the extension. It accepted that the practical reason for the delay was negligence by the respondent's advisers rather than a deliberate refusal to engage, and held that the claimant should not be fixed with the consequences of those advisers' failures. The tribunal also found that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent because the claim could still progress early the following year, whereas refusal would lead to default judgment on serious allegations without a defence.

The tribunal noted weaknesses in the proposed Response, including the respondent's failure to answer the claimant's detailed allegations at the time, the editing of the claimant's complaint letter, and aspects of the respondent's evidence that were confused or contradictory. It nevertheless considered those points insufficient to refuse the extension. The claimant then applied for costs arising from the need to respond to the application, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £3,650 plus VAT because the respondent's/his representative's conduct of the case had been unreasonable and had caused unnecessary delay and expense.