Mrs S Leech v The Department For Work And Pensions: 3300328/2021

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3300328/2021

Between

Mrs S LeechClaimant

The Department For Work And PensionsRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Postle

Date 29 September 2021

REASONS

[1]The claimant filed a claim under the Equality Act 2010 for the protected characteristic of disability. The claimant remains employed by the respondent.

[2]The claim was filed on 11 January 2021 and the time for a response to be entered was 12 February 2021.

[3]The respondent failed to enter a response and consequently a Judgment was entered under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

[4]On 12 March 2021 the respondent made a retrospective application for an extension of time and a Reconsideration of the Judgment under rule 71 together with a Draft Response.

[5]Rules 70 to 72 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure apply in this case. A Judgment may be reconsidered if it is in interests of justice to do so. I have to apply the overriding objective set out at rule 2 and seek to balance the prejudice to the parties.

[6]A late response accompanied by an application for an extension of time is provided for by rule 20. The exercise of judicial discretion in consideration of such an application also entails applying the overriding objective and balancing the prejudice to the parties.

[7]The purpose of the Default Judgment provisions of rule 21 is to provide justice where a respondent ignores a claim. It is not to punish inefficiency, error or oversight. If the Judgment stands, the claimant will be entitled to a significant sum of money in compensation for a claim. The merits of which have not been tested. That is a very significant prejudice to the respondent. The prejudice to the claimant is that she will not receive compensation without her claims being heard in a tribunal. The balance of prejudice favours granting the applications. It is proportionate and in accordance with the overriding objective to grant both applications.

[8]Given the claimant’s claim is for the protected characteristic of disability specifically Spondylitis changes to the neck and spine which at this stage the respondent does not accept as a disability within the meaning of s.6 of the Equality Act 2010.

[9]The following orders were therefore made. ORDERS Made pursuant to the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure

[1]Disability Issue1.1 The claimant to provide medical evidence/GP records/hospital notes such as are available in support of the claimant’s alleged disability together with an Impact Statement setting out how the alleged disability impacts the claimant’s normal day to day activities and send to the respondent on or before 24 November 2021.

1.2 The respondent shall by 22 December 2021 confirm to the Tribunal and the claimant whether the issue of disability remains in dispute and if so the brief reasons, together with whether the issue of the respondent’s knowledge of the claimant’s disability also remains in dispute.

[2]Preliminary Hearing 2.1 A preliminary hearing has therefore been listed for Monday 24 January 2022 with a time estimate of half a day commencing at 10.00 am as an in person hearing at the Norwich Employment Tribunal, sitting at Norwich Magistrates Court, Bishopgate, NORWICH, Norfolk, NR3 1UP to consider the following:-a. Whether the claimant has a disability within the meaning of s.6 of the Equality Act 2010; and

b. Whether the claims are out of time and whether it would be just and equitable to extend time.

[3]Other Matters3.1 The above orders were made and explained to the parties at the preliminary hearing. All orders must be complied with even if this written record of the hearing is received after the date for compliance has passed.

3.2 Anyone affected by any of these orders may apply for it to be varied, suspended or set aside. Any further applications should be made on receipt of these orders or as soon as possible.

3.3 The parties may by agreement vary the dates specified in any order by up to 14 days without the Tribunal’s permission except that no variation may be agreed where that might affect the hearing date. The Tribunal must be told about any agreed variation before it comes into effect.

3.4