Mr Aldred (Trade Union Representative). For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant brought a claim under the Equality Act 2010 relying on the protected characteristic of disability. The respondent did not enter a response in time, so a default judgment was entered under rule 21. The respondent then applied retrospectively for an extension of time and for reconsideration of the judgment under rule 71, filing a draft response on 12 March 2021.

Employment Judge Postle applied rules 70 to 72, the overriding objective in rule 2, and the balance of prejudice between the parties. The judgment records that the purpose of the default judgment provisions is not to punish inefficiency, error or oversight. The tribunal concluded that the prejudice to the respondent if the default judgment stood, namely a significant compensation claim that had not been tested on its merits, outweighed the prejudice to the claimant, who would otherwise lose the opportunity for her claims to be heard. It was therefore proportionate and in accordance with the overriding objective to grant both applications.

The tribunal reconsidered and revoked the judgment of 2 March 2021 and accepted the respondent's response filed on 12 March 2021. It also recorded that the claimant remained employed and that the disability issue related to spondylitis changes to the neck and spine, which the respondent did not yet accept amounted to a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. A preliminary hearing was listed to determine whether the claimant has a disability and whether the claims are out of time, including whether it would be just and equitable to extend time.