Ms J Carpenter, Solicitor. For the v Respondent — 2020

This hearing was listed as a preliminary issue to decide whether the respondent's response should be accepted despite being submitted after the original deadline. Mr B Aken had presented an unfair dismissal claim on 8 May 2019, saying he had been employed as a support worker/carer from April 2010 until 1 February 2019, when he was summarily dismissed.

The tribunal held that the claim form was not validly served when it was sent to 6-7 Kings Court, because that address was neither the respondent's principal office nor a place of business with a real connection to the claim. It accepted the respondent's argument that valid service occurred only when the claim form was sent to the registered office at 53 High Street, Cheveley, sometime between 22 August and 6 September 2019, and on that basis the response served on 27 September 2019 was in time.

Employment Judge S Moore also said that, even if the response had been out of time, the tribunal would have exercised discretion to accept it. The claimant's submission that Ms Penny Overy had wilfully ignored the proceedings until 24 September 2019 was rejected; the judge accepted her evidence that she first became aware of the claim when she collected post from 6-7 Kings Court on 24 September 2019 and acted as quickly as she could afterwards.

The judge did not assess the merits of the unfair dismissal claim or resolve the factual dispute about whether payments shown in bank statements between 2016 and 2018 were wages or were referable to other personal matters. The practical outcome was that the respondent's response remained on record and the hearing listed for 1 April 2020 was able to proceed.