Case 3315853/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Eyers v Mr H Thompson t/as Thompson & Co — 2022

Case reference: 3315853/2021
Decision date: 11 August 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms A Eyers

Respondent

Mr H Thompson t/as Thompson & Co

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Bury St Edmunds by CVP on 1 August 2022, Employment Judge Laidler heard the claimant's application for default judgment and the respondent's application for an extension of time. The claimant, Ms A Eyers, appeared in person and the respondent, Mr H Thompson t/a Thompson & Co, was represented by counsel.

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for default judgment. It also granted the respondent's application for an extension of time, accepted the ET3 form and Grounds of Resistance filed on 27 January 2022 as the response to the claim, and left the full merits hearing listed for 27 to 29 March 2023.

The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The claimant's application for a default judgment was dismissed. This was a procedural application, not a merits determination of the underlying claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The respondent's application for an extension of time to present its response was granted, and the ET3 form and Grounds of Resistance filed on 27 January 2022 were accepted as the response to the claim.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 .

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.