C Coleman v , Represented by: B McKinlay, Solicitor MCM Cleaning Solutions Limited and 1 other — 2026

This judgment concerned only the respondents’ application under Rule 21 to extend time for presenting their ET3 response and to revoke the default judgment issued on 2 March 2026. That default judgment had found that MCM Cleaning Solutions Limited unfairly dismissed and discriminated against C Coleman and ordered it to pay £14,410, while finding that Michelle Maire discriminated against Coleman and ordering her to pay £7,500.

The Tribunal found that at least one Notice of Claim was likely received at MCM’s offices in late November 2025. It considered it likely that Maire or her husband arranged to avoid opening correspondence that might contain notice of the claim until after their family holiday because of the likely effect on her mental health. Maire opened the correspondence on or about 9 February 2026, legal consultants were appointed on 11 February, and a detailed ET3 accompanied the application submitted on 2 March. The Tribunal found that the holiday explanation was true but not the whole truth, although it was unclear whether Maire knew the correspondence had arrived before the office closed. It characterised the failure as negligent or wilful delay in opening the correspondence, arising from legitimate concerns about Maire’s mental health, rather than unjustifiable procedural abuse, questionable tactics or intentional default.

Coleman’s substantive case was that she had been dismissed because of her pregnancy. The respondents’ proposed defence asserted that performance concerns pre-dated notification of her pregnancy and that she was dismissed for poor performance. The Tribunal did not determine those disputed matters; it found only that the detailed defence was not without merit if the respondents could evidence the earlier performance concerns.

The Tribunal found minimal prejudice to Coleman from allowing the late response and material reputational and financial prejudice to the respondents if they were denied an opportunity to defend claims for which their response was not without merit. After weighing the explanation, possible lack of candour, length of delay, merits and prejudice, it extended time to 2 March 2026. Rule 21(5) then required the default judgment to be set aside, so the Tribunal revoked it. Consequently, this judgment made no determination of the unfair dismissal or pregnancy discrimination claims and imposed no operative monetary award.