Ms R Spalding v Balmore Leisure Ltd — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 30 June 2025, Employment Judge L Wiseman considered Balmore Leisure Ltd's application under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2024 for an extension of time to present a Response and to set aside the default judgment dated 7 January 2025. The claimant objected. The tribunal heard evidence from Ms Kirsty Macarthur and considered the respondent's explanation that it believed the claim had been brought against the wrong company.

The judge found that the claim had been sent to the correct address on 4 October 2024 and received by the respondent. The tribunal also found that the respondent continued to receive correspondence about the proceedings and that its explanations for not responding, including the asserted belief that the case would not proceed, were weak and lacked credibility. The judge noted that Ms Macarthur had offered the claimant a contract of employment with Balmore Leisure Ltd on 5 May 2024, which the claimant accepted.

Applying Rule 21 and the approach in Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain 1997 ICR 49, the tribunal held that the respondent's delay was not adequately explained, that the balance of prejudice favoured the claimant, and that the proposed defence lacked merit. The application for an extension of time was refused. The effect was that the earlier 7 January 2025 judgment remains live and enforceable; this decision refers to that earlier judgment as having found the claimant's unfair dismissal and pay claims successful.