Miss J Onazi v A1 Devlab Limited and 1 other — 2024

This judgment concerned A1 Devlab Limited's application for an extension of time to file its response to Miss J Onazi's claim. The tribunal recorded that the claim had been issued on 21 March 2023, that the response was due on 2 May 2023, and that the first respondent did not take action until 6 December 2023, when it applied for an extension and filed a draft response. The second respondent had not filed a response or sought any extension.

Employment Judge Benson accepted that there may initially have been no notification to the first respondent, but found that Mr Sheikh, its sole director, had notice of the proceedings by late September or early October 2023. The explanation for the delay was described as vague and weak. The judge accepted that Mr Sheikh was dealing with personal difficulties concerning his elderly parents, but found that this did not explain the absence of any response for such a long period after he had notice of the claim.

On the balance of prejudice, the tribunal found that more prejudice would be caused to the claimant if the extension were granted. It noted that the company was not trading and that its director had applied to have it struck off, while the claimant had already spent over a year pursuing the matter and preparing for hearings that did not proceed because no response had been filed. The tribunal also observed that the draft defence appeared to have limited merit, particularly because the first respondent's own signed and dated contract with the claimant tended to show an employment relationship. The application to extend time was therefore refused, the response was not accepted, and the claim was to proceed to a final hearing.