Mr M Tkachenko v Northern Recruitment (Scotland) Ltd: 8000950/2025
JUDGMENT
Rules 69 – 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that upon reconsideration in terms of rule 69, the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal dated 10 October 2025 is revoked. ORDERS(1) The ET1 is to be re-served at the respondent’s above address and copied to the respondent’s director by email.(2) An extension of time is granted for presentation of the ET3 no later than 4 March 2026.REASONS
[1]The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal on 21 April 2025. Notice of the claim was served on the respondent on 24 April 2025. A response was required to be lodged to the claim by 22 May 2025. Although the claim was served on the respondent at the address of its registered office as shown on the Companies House register, the claim form was returned to the Employment Tribunal unopened. On 14 May 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant to explain that service had bounced and to request an alternative address. The claimant did not reply.[2]The view was taken that since service had been attempted at the respondent’s correct registered office address, it was appropriate to issue a default judgment. Default judgment was issued on 10 October 2025.[3]By email dated 22 October 2025, the respondent (per Yvonne Donnelly, Director) requested a reconsideration, stating that the respondent had not received the ET1 and had not therefore had the opportunity to respond to the claim. Ms Donnelly stated that until 20 October 2025, she did not know any action was required of the respondent. She further stated: “The claimant, at the time (for dates March and April 2025) was a self-employed CIS worker via IConsult payroll and on a contract for services with I Consult. He was never an employee of Northern Recruitment (Scotland) Ltd.” The application was not refused under Rule 69(2) and the claimant was asked for his response to the application by 13 November 2025 and also asked to express a view as to whether the application could be determined without a hearing. The claimant opposed the application. However, both parties confirmed that they were happy for the application to be determined without a hearing. Time has been allocated to me today to consider and determine the application.[4]In relation to the respondent’s non-receipt of the ET1, the claimant submitted: “The Tribunal is entitled to rely on its standard procedure for dispatching documents to the Respondent’s registered address. The assertion of non-receipt of multiple critical official documents, spanning several months, indicates a failure of internal procedure on the Respondent's part. This failure, which is attributable solely to the Respondent, should not be allowed to prejudice the Claimant by setting aside a valid judgment.” That is certainly fair comment and I pay special regard to the fact that the ET1 was served at the respondent’s registered office address. However, it is apparent from the file that the ET1 was not seen by the respondent. Further, the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter dated 14 May 2025, requesting an alternative address for re-service.[5]The substantive defence the respondent puts forward is that the claimant was a self-employed contractor with another company and that he was not employed by them. The claimant fairly acknowledges that: “This question of employment status is the core issue of the claim, which was determined in the Claimant's favour following the Respondent’s failure to submit a defence. Reconsideration is not intended to allow a party to re-run the entire case and belatedly submit a defence that they had ample opportunity to raise via a timely ET3.” This is, of course also fair comment. However, because the respondent did not present a defence to the claim, the issue of the claimant’s employment status has not been considered or determined by the Tribunal.[6]Having considered the submissions of both parties carefully, I have concluded that the default judgment dated 10 October 2025 should be revoked. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account that the respondent did not receive (or at least have sight of) the ET1, a matter that is apparent from the Tribunal file. The respondent has a stateable defence to the claim which has a reasonable prospect of succeeding, depending on the facts put forward by the parties. In these circumstances, the prejudice to the claimant is that of losing a default judgment and having to make his case in light of the defence. I have concluded that the prejudice to the claimant in revoking the default judgment is outweighed by the prejudice to the respondent of not having an opportunity to present their defence. It is therefore necessary in the interests of justice to revoke the default judgment and to extend the time for presentation of the ET3. The ET1 will be reserved at the respondent’s registered office address and copied to Ms Donnelly by email. The respondent will have until 4 March 2026 to present its ET3.