Case 1801981/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs N Lax v Proactiv Cards Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 1801981/2019
Decision date: 19 July 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rostant Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs N Lax

Respondent

Proactiv Cards Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This decision concerned a procedural application rather than the merits of the underlying claim. The claimant presented the claim form on 2 May 2019, it was served on the respondent on 14 May 2019, and a response was due by 11 June 2019. The respondent's response was not received until 12 June 2019, and on 19 June 2019 the respondent was notified that the response had been rejected.

By email of 12 July 2019, the respondent complained that it had not been informed of any right to apply for reconsideration. Employment Judge Rostant Date treated that email as an application for reconsideration and/or an application for an extension of time. The judge rejected the respondent's explanation, finding that the rejection letter had been accompanied by notes explaining the process and the steps required for an extension of time.

The judge also noted that the application did not provide any proper explanation for the original failure to present a response in time. For that reason, the judge was not prepared to reconsider the rejection of the response or extend time to permit a late response. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy were recorded in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The respondent's application to reconsider the rejection of its late response, and to extend time to permit that response, was refused.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.