Mrs S Glover v AND Priory Group — 2022

The tribunal dealt only with the respondent's application for reconsideration of the judgment striking out its response. The claim had been presented on 22 February 2021, the response had been filed on 5 July 2021, and because the e-mail address in the ET3 contained a dot that was said to be an administrative error, subsequent Tribunal and claimant correspondence went to an address the respondent said it did not receive. The response had been accepted on 7 September 2021, the claimant sent disability impact material in October and November 2021, the respondent did not answer the Tribunal's directions, did not attend the case management hearing on 5 January 2022, and the response was struck out on 8 February 2022 for repeated non-compliance and failure to actively defend the case.

On the application dated 24 March 2022, the respondent said it had only recently discovered that the response had been struck out and that it had not received the Tribunal's correspondence. The claimant opposed the application as out of time and relied on Higgins and Beckinsale v Raja Care Homes Limited, but the tribunal said it was not bound by other Employment Tribunal decisions and that the circumstances were different. Applying rule 5 to extend time and considering the rule 70 interests of justice test, together with the authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had not received the correspondence, that the response was reasonably arguable, and that the respondent had acted promptly once the problem came to light.

The tribunal granted the application, revoked the strikeout, and directed the Tribunal office to send the respondent copies of the correspondence, orders, further particulars of claim, and disability impact documentation. It also directed the respondent to confirm whether it disputed that the claimant was disabled at the material times and to confirm its correct name. The judgment records that the case would be listed for a telephone case management preliminary hearing, and it did not decide the substantive merits of the underlying claims.