In Thorney Golf Centre Ltd v (1) Reed (2) Reed [2024] EAT 96 the EAT held that, when deciding whether to extend time for a late response, the starting point, in relation to delay, should be a consideration of the extent of the delay in putting in the response itself and/or (if done later) in applying for an extension. Any further time delay inevitably involved in reaching the point at which a judge determines the application will not be significant to that decision but will not necessarily be irrelevant in every case.
The EAT found that it was acceptable for the employment tribunal to refuse the respondent’s request to cross-examine the witnesses, particularly taking into account the context of the rejected response and the claimants’ vulnerable mental health. HHJ Auerbach said that:
‘the tribunal’s approach in each case to that discretion must have due regard to what participation is sought, the extent to which such participation can be accommodated without significant disruption to the process, and what the respondent stands to lose if not permitted to participate in the way sought.’
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>