Mr A Levy v Dr Fenske and Partners — 2018

The claimant had presented claims for unfair dismissal and detriment because he had made protected disclosures. A response was due by 26 March 2018, but no valid ET3 had been received and judgment was entered in default. The case was then listed for a reconsideration hearing.

At the hearing on 6 August 2018, the tribunal accepted that DAS Law had emailed a Form ET3 on 26 March 2018 to an address for Huntingdon Employment Tribunal, but the claim had been issued from the Watford office and the tribunal documents bore the Watford address. The auto-reply stated that Huntingdon administration had been transferred to Watford. The judge held that the response had been sent to the wrong address and was not validly delivered within the rules, but that the draft response showed triable issues.

The respondent's application for reconsideration was allowed, the judgment dated 2 July 2018 was set aside, and the response submitted on 26 March 2018 was accepted out of time as the respondent's response. The tribunal also made a preparation time order in the claimant's favour, to be summarily assessed if not agreed, because the response had been sent to an address with no connection to the proceedings and no explanation had been given for the delay in correcting the error. No substantive merits determination was made on the underlying unfair dismissal or protected-disclosure claims in this judgment.