Miss H Mustafa v Maguire Solicitors — 2021

This judgment was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application for an extension of time to present ET3. The tribunal extended time and accepted the response, so the claim would proceed as defended. No substantive liability decision was made on the underlying employment claim and no remedy was awarded.

The claimant, Miss H Mustafa, confirmed that her case was that she had been dismissed because she asked for a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and a written statement of employment particulars, and that she had asserted a statutory right. She also confirmed that although the claim form mentioned discrimination, she was not in fact alleging discrimination. The respondent was Maguire Solicitors, represented by Ms D Alexander.

The tribunal accepted that the claim form had been sent to the address given by the claimant, but that this was an old address for the respondent and not its then-current trading address. It found that the respondent had moved from 171 Elderslie Street to 1 West Regent Street in June 2019, and later to 2 Clarendon Place in August 2020. It accepted evidence that mail redirection was in place, and that the respondent first became aware of the claim on 26 October 2020, after which it instructed solicitors promptly and presented ET3 on 11 November 2020.

In deciding whether to extend time, the tribunal considered the interests of justice, the balance of prejudice, the length and reason for the delay, and whether there was a stateable defence. It referred to Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain, Chowles v West, and Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes. It accepted that there was a stateable defence, that the respondent had not deliberately defaulted, and that the delay was not so significant as to justify refusing the extension. Accordingly, the tribunal allowed ET3 to be accepted and the claim to proceed to a defended hearing.