Case 3301098/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Harkin, Friend For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301098/2021
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss Harkin, Friend For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration judgment, not a merits decision on the underlying employment claims. Employment Judge Postle, sitting alone on 28 January 2022, reconsidered and revoked the default judgment dated 28 April 2021 and sent to the parties on 4 May 2021. The respondent's application for an extension of time to file its response was granted, and the response filed on 7 May 2021 was accepted.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent said it had never received service of the ET1, and the office for service during the pandemic may have missed it. The application for reconsideration followed promptly after the default judgment, and the judge applied Rules 70 to 72, the overriding objective, and the separate rule dealing with late responses and extensions of time. The judge concluded that the prejudice to the respondent in allowing the matter to proceed to a full hearing outweighed the prejudice to the claimant in losing the default judgment, and that this was a proportionate decision in the interests of justice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment was on the respondent's application for reconsideration and extension of time only. It did not determine the underlying merits of any substantive employment claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rules 70-72 ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 20 ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- interests of justice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.