Miss Pauleen Harkins v Mrs Irene Duffy — 2019

This hearing, listed as a final hearing, was converted into a preliminary hearing under Rule 48 so the tribunal could decide the respondent's late ET3 and her application for an extension of time under Rule 20. The claimant had lodged her ET1 on 1 November 2018 seeking redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay after the end of her work as a florist on 31 August 2018. The respondent had not lodged a response by the original deadline of 3 December 2018, but appeared in person and asked for her late response to be accepted.

The tribunal heard both parties on the delay, the merits of the defence, and prejudice, applying the approach it had explained from Grant v Asda and the other authorities it cited, including Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain, Costellow v Somerset County Council, Pendragon plc (t/a CD Bramall Bradford) v Copus, and Thornton v Jones. It accepted that the respondent's failure was not wilful, took account of the explanation she gave about seeking help from Citizens Advice and other personal and business pressures, and concluded that the interests of justice favoured allowing the late ET3.

As a result, the tribunal accepted the late response, ordered that the case proceed as defended, and directed that it be relisted for a one-day final hearing on liability and remedy. On the underlying dispute, the respondent maintained that she was not liable for redundancy or notice pay and said the claimant had less than two years' continuous service with her as a sole trader, while the claimant said she had not resigned and had not been offered continuing work. No final determination of those substantive claims was made in this judgment.

The respondent did, however, accept that she owed the claimant 2 weeks' outstanding holiday pay, agreed at £220, and the judgment records that case management directions were issued separately in respect of that admission.