Mr. J Weldon v Represented by: Mr. R Lawson, Solicitor GXO Logistics UK Limited — 2024

At the preliminary hearing on 5 September 2024, the tribunal dealt with the respondent's out-of-time ET3 application rather than the merits of the underlying claims. The claim form had pleaded unfair dismissal under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996, automatically unfair dismissal under s.152 TULRCA 1992, and detriments under s.146 TULRCA 1992. The respondent said it had not received the Notice of Claim sent to its registered office and that it acted promptly once it received the Tribunal's correspondence of 10 May 2024.

The tribunal applied Rule 20 of the ET Rules, the overriding objective in Rule 2, and the Rule 90 presumption of receipt, together with the authorities cited on extensions of time, including Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain, Grant v ASDA Stores, Thornton v Jones, and Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes. It accepted that the respondent had not shown precisely where or why the original notice was not received, but noted there was no evidence to contradict the respondent's account that the correspondence had not been received at the relevant PO box/registered office and that the respondent had moved quickly once it became aware of the claim.

On the merits of the application, the tribunal found the draft ET3 was properly arguable. The respondent's case was that the claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct after it formed a reasonable belief that he had failed to provide a sample for a drugs and alcohol test, following a reasonable investigation and both disciplinary and appeal stages. The tribunal also took account of prejudice, including that the claimant had not yet provided a schedule of loss and other requested information, and concluded that allowing the response would better accord with fairness and justice than excluding the respondent. It therefore allowed the late response, accepted the ET3, and directed a further preliminary hearing for case management and the preparation of joint materials.