Mr L Tandy v Spanjer Chemicals Limited — 2022

This was a reserved judgment on the Respondent's application for an extension of time to present its Response to Mr Tandy's claim. Employment Judge O'Rourke refused the application. The tribunal applied the overriding objective in Rule 2, with reference to the approach in Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain and ors, and considered the explanation for delay, the balance of prejudice, and the merits of the proposed defence.

The tribunal found the delay to be excessive, describing it as at least four months and, in context, "egregious". The Respondent said it had believed its insurers would take over the case, but the tribunal noted that no corroborative evidence had been produced of contact with the insurers or of their stated position on cover. It found that even on Mr Warriner's evidence the insurers were disputing cover by January 2022, yet the Respondent took no effective steps for several months and then still waited about two weeks after 4 August 2022 before lodging the application.

The tribunal also held that the balance of prejudice favoured the Claimant. It noted that he had already waited a year since his dismissal and that a final hearing was likely to be many months further away if the application were granted. On the merits, the tribunal said there were likely weaknesses in the proposed Response, including issues about consultation, the identification of the pool, the use of a subjective criterion, and the fact that Mr Warriner accepted the Claimant had been locked out of the server and email system after the redundancy issue was first raised. The application was therefore refused; the underlying unfair dismissal claim was not decided in this judgment.