Mr I Chukwudolue, solicitor For the v Mr A Burgess, consultant (Peninsula) — 2020

This hearing concerned the respondent's application to revoke a rule 21 default judgment and accept an ET3 out of time, together with the claimant's costs application. The tribunal found that the ET1 had been posted to the correct Tavistock House address on 8 December 2020, that no response was received, and that a rule 21 judgment was issued on 4 March 2021.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that it had not received the claim, noting the limited office use during lockdown, the post-handling arrangements at Tavistock House, and the fact that other ET1s sent to the same address had been properly processed and defended. It also found that, once notified of the judgment on 11 March 2021, the respondent acted with reasonable speed in seeking the ET1 and filing its ET3 and extension application.

On the merits of the application, the tribunal found an arguable defence to the underlying dismissal claim, including a dispute about whether the claimant was dismissed for conduct on 9 July 2020 or for some other substantial reason after Amazon required his removal from site and he did not pursue other vacancies. It also noted arguable issues about whether alleged discriminatory acts by Mr PP could be attributed to the respondent and whether some discrimination complaints needed further clarification. Balancing prejudice and the interests of justice, the tribunal revoked the judgment and accepted the response.

The claimant's costs application was refused. The tribunal held that unreasonable conduct by the respondent had not been shown, and the application was unsupported by a copy of the firm's terms of engagement, an itemised bill, or any time breakdown. A preliminary hearing was then listed for 10 February 2022.