Mr. B. Osholake v EAM-R Maintenance Expert Ltd — 2024

This hearing did not determine the underlying employment claim on its merits. Employment Judge Misra K.C. granted the Respondent’s Rule 20 application for an extension of time to present a response, allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings, and adjourned the final hearing that had been listed for one hour on 22 July 2024 to 1 November 2024 for a three-hour hearing.

The tribunal recorded that the Claimant was unrepresented and had misunderstood the directions, so he had not prepared, filed, or served documents setting out the sums claimed or otherwise complied with the directions. As a result, the tribunal said it was unclear what was being claimed and there was no documentary evidence, witness statements, or schedule of loss for the tribunal to consider at that stage. The Judge also directed the Claimant to further particularise the case and made case management directions by consent to ensure the matter was ready for an effective final hearing.

In deciding to permit the Respondent’s late response, the tribunal noted the Claimant’s limited objection, the overriding objective, and the need for both sides to understand the case against them and address it properly at the final hearing. It also noted that the sole director and owner of the Respondent had died on 11 February 2024, which had created difficulties in obtaining instructions, although enquiries were being made about the executors. The tribunal observed that the Respondent had provided a draft ET3 promptly and that amendment would be needed in any event once the Claimant’s complaints were particularised.