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 judgment and allow an extension of time if no good reason for the delay was put forward. If he had had a discretion, given the presence of merit in the response, he would have granted the extension.
Held: that the principles laid down by Mummery P in Kwik Save v Swain [1997] ICR 49 still apply under the new Rules, namely that, although the reasons for delay must be considered and there must be shown to be merit in the proposed defence, the discretion is a broad just and equitable one.
Burton P applied Kwik Save, concluding: ‘In any event, as I commented above, I note the caveat that the chairman himself put forward – ‘in almost all cases’ – which makes any such argument difficult to accept. It is quite plain that the wording of rule 33(6) is not, as the chairman concluded it was, one which renders the absence of a good reason determinative of an application. It simply makes it a matter which the tribunal considering an extension must have regard to. But, it does not in my judgment rule out consideration of all the other matters, which inevitably must be considered on a discretionary decision by the tribunal, including, but not limited to, the reasonable prospect of success.’


The Honourable Mr Justice Burton


UKEAT/0317/05, [2005] UKEAT 0317 – 05 – 1107, [2005] ICR 1671


Bailii, EATn


CitedMoroak T/A Blake Envelopes v Cromie EAT 19-Apr-2005
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 . .
Still good lawKwik 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 by:

CitedNSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229157