White v Bosch Rexroth Ltd — 2023

The claimant had presented claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. The respondent did not lodge an ET3 by the original deadline of 16 November 2023 and later applied, on 29 November 2023, for an extension of time. The explanation given was that the papers had been received by the respondent's health and safety manager during a period when there were no HR team members available, and he had understood that Andron Facilities Management would deal with the response because the respondent's position was that it was not the claimant's employer. The claimant objected to the extension, but said she was content for the matter to be dealt with on written representations and stated that she was not seeking a payout, but wanted the alleged handling of harassment complaints documented.

The tribunal dealt with the application under Rule 20(3) on the basis of written representations. It treated Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain and others [1997] ICR 49 as the relevant approach and weighed the balance of prejudice. The tribunal accepted that the respondent should not be deprived of the opportunity to advance a substantive defence, because otherwise it might face significant compensation despite saying it was not legally liable as employer. It also found that the prejudice to the claimant was slight, the delay was only a few weeks, and although there was no external reason for the confusion, such confusion could arise where the respondent maintained that it was not the claimant's employer.

The judgment therefore granted the respondent's application to extend time and directed the secretary to accept the late ET3. It is a procedural judgment only and does not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal or sex discrimination claims.