Ms M Wright v The Traffic Management Company and TCMC Crowded Space Ltd: 6020351/2024
JUDGMENT
[3]Judgment is made in favour of the Claimant by consent and the R2 shall pay to her on or by 5pm 2 June 2025 the sum of £219.70 in full and final settlement of all her claims in these proceedings in addition to her acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the sum of £181.30 already paid on 29 May 2025.REASONS
[4]At the start of what was listed as a Preliminary Hearing (by video link) for Case Management Purposes, I was advised by both sides that it was accepted that the correctly cited Respondent should be R2 and that the Claimant acknowledged receipt from R2 on 29 May 2025 of the sum of £181.30 in part settlement of her claim.[5]Mr McQuillan for R2 explained to me that in advance of expiry of the deadline falling for filing an ET3 Response to the claim, on behalf of R2 he repeatedly attempted to do so electronically but without success, and so he had resorted to attempting to remedy this by filing R2’s ET3 by an email sent to the Leeds Tribunal Centre. Significantly, he had sent out R2’s Response to the claims in detail. He had not sought to avoid the need to be specific about the grounds of defence.[6]He now accepts that filing in the manner he chose does not comply with the most recent Presidential Practice Direction which specifies that if all else fails Respondents should file ET3s by email to the Tribunal’s central office. I can accept he was entirely unaware of the most recent Presidential Practice Direction.[7]Nonetheless, I was prepared to accept that R2 had made an honest and genuine attempt to file it's ET3 Response in time, and that the draft ET3 did raise issues worthy of being tried in a full hearing, to the extent that it was reasonable for me to exercise my power to validate the ET3 which R2 had attempted to file, and treat it as accepted so long as with further guidance as to how to submit it electronically which R2 would do so immediately.[8]I then discussed with the parties the issues to be determined and the fact that if they remained in conflict with each other, it would be necessary to set the 2 of 3 case down for a full merits hearing to be heard by another judge, and that this would require considerable expenditure of time and money in preparing for such eventuality.[9]The parties then sought, and I agreed to let them have time for discussions in private. Following this, they advised me that settlement terms had been agreed (on the basis of R2 not admitting liability) and which enabled me to give Judgment in the terms which are reflected above.