Miss S Bewley, Counsel For the v Mr D Frame, Solicitor — 2022

At the preliminary hearing on 10 June 2022, Employment Judge Bloom refused the respondent's application to extend time for presenting its Response. The respondent had known of the deadline for 23 December 2020, but the final Response was not filed because of Mr Frame's admitted oversight. The tribunal found the delay was serious, was solely attributable to that error, and that the claimant would be prejudiced by further delay while the respondent would not suffer material prejudice. In reaching that decision the judge referred to Rule 20, Rule 21, the overriding objective in Rule 2, and Kwik Save Stores Limited v Swain (1997) ICR 49.

After refusing the extension, the tribunal recorded the respondent's concession that the claimant was a worker within section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. The issue whether he was also an employee was left for the substantive hearing, together with the merits of the underlying claims. The respondent's further participation was limited to remedy and any costs or wasted costs applications, and case management orders were made for the next stage of the proceedings.