Mrs Hodgson, the Claimant’s mother. For the v Respondent — 2024

The case had originally included complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of age and/or sex, and breach of contract relating to notice. By the time of this decision, the remaining live matters were four allegations of harassment on the grounds of sex and/or age. The February 2024 final hearing had been vacated after repeated non-compliance with case management orders, and the Response was struck out on 5 February 2024.

On the Respondent's reconsideration application, DAS Law explained that an associate had mistakenly marked the file as concluded on its internal system, which meant key hearing dates were not added to the prompt system and the matter was not being actively managed. The Tribunal accepted that the application was made in time under rule 71 and considered the interests of justice under rule 70, including the need for finality in litigation, the seriousness of the allegations, and whether a fair trial remained possible.

Judge Livesey found that the Claimant would suffer delay, but no specific additional evidential prejudice was identified, and that the Respondent would suffer greater hardship if the strike-out judgment stood. The Tribunal also noted that the Respondent itself had not been shown to be at fault for the management failures, which were attributed to its solicitors. The application was therefore allowed and the judgment of 5 February 2024 was revoked.