Default judgment after repudiatory breach: extension refused for long-serving employee
A long-serving employee who resigned due to a repudiatory breach of contract won her unfair dismissal claim by default after the employer failed to file a response. The tribunal refused the employer's late application for an extension of time.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #long-serving-employee
- #repudiatory-breach
- #extension-of-time-refused
- #default-judgment
Key facts
- The claimant was a long-serving employee of the respondent, close to retirement.
- The claimant resigned due to the respondent's repudiatory breach of contract.
- Employment Judge Jones found the claimant was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed on 26 May 2022.
- The respondent applied for an extension of time to file a response, which was refused.
- The remedy hearing was adjourned to 21 September 2022.
Timeline
-
Early conciliation started
The claimant entered early conciliation with ACAS.
-
Letter before action sent
The claimant's solicitors sent a letter before action to the respondent.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim for unfair constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
-
Claim form received by respondent
The respondent received the claim form with a warning to respond by 19 April 2022.
-
Respondent attempted to file response
The respondent claims it submitted a response, but it was never received by the Tribunal.
-
Deadline for response
The deadline for the respondent to file a response passed.
-
Insurers contacted
The respondent's insurers were contacted.
-
Insurers instructed solicitors
The respondent's insurers sent instructions to solicitors.
-
Default judgment
Employment Judge Jones gave judgment in favour of the claimant for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
-
Application for extension
The respondent applied for an extension of time to file a response.
-
Remedy hearing (adjourned)
The remedy hearing was held but adjourned to consider the respondent's application.
-
Application refused
Employment Judge Shulman refused the respondent's application for an extension of time.
The legal issue
Whether the employer should be granted an extension of time to file a response after a default judgment had already been entered against it for failing to respond to the claim.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the employer's application for an extension of time to file a response. The default judgment of unfair and wrongful dismissal therefore stands.
- The employer claimed it had submitted a response on time, but the tribunal never received it.
- The employer then delayed a further two months before applying for an extension, only after the default judgment was issued.
- The tribunal found the employer's explanation unsatisfactory and that the balance of prejudice favoured the employee, who was a long-serving employee close to retirement.
- The remedy hearing was adjourned to 21 September 2022.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure their response is actually received by the tribunal – relying on sending without confirmation can lead to default judgment.
- A long delay in applying for an extension, especially after a default judgment, makes it much harder to persuade a tribunal to set it aside.
- Employees who resign due to a repudiatory breach can bring constructive dismissal claims, and the tribunal will treat them as dismissed.
- Early conciliation and a letter before action put an employer on notice – failing to act promptly can be fatal to their defence.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of employers responding promptly and correctly to tribunal claims. The employee, a long-serving worker near retirement, resigned after what she said was a repudiatory breach of contract by her employer, Harehills Labour Club. She brought claims for unfair constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
The employer received the claim form in March 2022 with a clear deadline of 19 April 2022 to respond. It claimed to have sent a response on 13 April, but the tribunal never received it. Despite this, the employer did not chase the tribunal or apply for an extension until 24 June – over two months later, and only after a default judgment had already been entered against it on 26 May.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer's key mistake was failing to confirm that its response had been received. A simple phone call or email to the tribunal after 19 April would have revealed the problem. Instead, it waited until after judgment, then argued that its insurers had been slow to instruct solicitors. The tribunal found this explanation unsatisfactory, noting that the employer had been on notice since the letter before action in March.
Why the result matters for similar claims
For employees, this case shows that a default judgment can be a powerful tool when an employer fails to engage with proceedings. The tribunal will not automatically grant an extension just because the employer now wants to defend the claim. The balance of prejudice – the harm to each side if the extension is or is not granted – is crucial. Here, the employee's long service and proximity to retirement weighed heavily in her favour.
For employers, the message is clear: tribunal deadlines are strict, and it is the employer's responsibility to ensure its response is filed. Relying on third parties like insurers without checking the outcome is risky. A default judgment can lead to a remedy hearing where the employer may be limited in what it can argue.
Similar cases
General Manager's constructive dismissal claim fails but holiday pay awarded
A General Manager with 13 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal after a dispute over a promised reward for a business sale. The tribunal rejected his claim but awarded £326.41 in unpaid holiday pay.
Dental lab manager wins constructive dismissal after hours cut without consultation
A dental lab manager with nine years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed after his employer cut his hours from 43 to 18 per week without any consultation. The tribunal found the employer's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract.
12-year employee resigns over grievance handling: constructive dismissal and remedy
A housing association was found to have constructively dismissed a long-serving employee after mishandling his grievance. The tribunal awarded over £11,000 in compensation, including a basic award of £6,096 and a compensatory award of £1,073.
Constructive dismissal after sexual harassment: default judgment and compensation
A former employee won a constructive dismissal and sexual harassment claim after their employer failed to respond to the tribunal claim. They were awarded £8,091.66 in compensation.