moroak_cromieEAT2005
EAT Response lodged at the Employment Tribunal 44 minutes late and the Employment Tribunal ordered that the Respondent could take no part in the proceedings and refused to review that order on the basis it had no jurisdiction to do so. The Employment Tribunal has no power under Rule 4 to entertain an application for an extension of time for service of the response once the 28-day period has expired (Rule 4(4)) and, although it has power to entertain an application to set aside judgment in default to grant an extension of time for a response once judgment set aside (Rule 33), no default judgment was entered. However, concluded on appeal that there is power under Rule 34 where the interests of justice require to review the order made under Rule 6 not to accept a response served out of time and to direct it be accepted. The test for making such an order, as with Rule 4 and Rule 33, is what is just and equitable. Review ordered under Rule 34 and decision to accept response substituted.
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
UKEAT/0093/05, [2005] UKEAT 0093 – 05 – 1904, [2005] IRLR 353
EATn, Bailii
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004
Citing:
Cited – Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain EAT 1997
An appellate court whose jurisdiction is limited to matters of law can only interfere where there has been a breach of well-established legal principles such as failing to take account of relevant factors.
When considering barring a party for . .
Cited – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and others EAT 29-Jul-1994
At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.
Cited by:
Cited – Nelson v Newry and Mourne District Council NIIT 26-Oct-2006
. .
Cited – Thompson v Hickland Haulage Ltd NIIT 22-Mar-2007
. .
Cited – Thompson v Hickland Haulage Ltd NIIT 24-Apr-2008
NIIT The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal because the parties reached a conciliated settlement with the . .
Cited – N Barrosso, M Mayou, A Gray, D Young v C Fahy EAT 31-Jan-2007
EAT Sex Discrimination – Vicarious liability. . .
Cited – Kredenza Ltd v M Jovicevic EAT 10-Nov-2005
EAT Sex Discrimination – Vicarious liability. . .
Cited – Richardson v U Mole Ltd EAT 9-Jun-2005
EAT The Employment Tribunal rejected a claim for unfair dismissal for non-compliance with Rule 1(4)f): there was no express statement (or ticked box, as the new form was not used) that the Claimant was an . .
Cited – Pendragon Plc T/A CD Bramall Bradford v Copus EAT 11-Jul-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Response served by Respondent out of time and judgment in default entered. Chairman found that pursuant to Rule 33 of the new Rules he had no discretion to review the default . .
Cited – Butlins Skyline Ltd, M Smith v Beynon EAT 20-Feb-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appearance/Response. . .
Cited – C Bone v Fabcon Projects Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements. . .
Cited – SKS Ltd v Brown EAT 4-Jul-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – striking out/dismissal and Appearance / Response and Review
Non – acceptance of response (form incomplete). Correct form sent in time, but Employment Tribunal declined to pay . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.257457