Employment

It was established law that when reviewing the rejection of a late-lodged ET3, the tribunal was entitled to exercise a broad discretion in the interests of justice; restrictive rules were not to be applied. The respondent’s explanation for his failure to lodge a response in time would always be relevant. If the delay was the result of a genuine misunderstanding or an accidental or understandable oversight, the tribunal might be much more willing to allow the late lodging of a response.

The length of the delay was also a relevant factor. Further, it was necessary to consider the prejudice to the parties if the extension was either granted or not granted. In that context, the merits of the respondent’s defence would always in principle be relevant, because it was obviously a serious matter for a respondent to be held liable, owing to a procedural default, for a wrong that he might not have in fact committed.