Default judgment revoked after employer filed response on time but it wasn't processed
A default judgment of £23,238.49 was set aside because the employer had actually submitted its response by the extended deadline, even though the tribunal had not processed it before issuing judgment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant issued claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay, and unpaid wages.
- The respondent failed to file a response by the original deadline and was granted an extension until 2 September 2022.
- The respondent submitted their response on 2 September 2022, but it was not processed before the judge issued a Rule 21 judgment on 8 September 2022.
- The respondent applied for reconsideration, which was granted because they had in fact complied with the extended deadline.
Timeline
-
Claim issued
The claimant issued proceedings in the Employment Tribunals (London South) for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay, and unpaid wages.
-
Notice to respondent
The Tribunal gave the respondent notice of the claim and directed them to respond by 11 February 2022.
-
Warning letter
The Tribunal warned the respondent that a default judgment could be issued if no response was received.
-
Extension application
The respondent's representatives applied for an extension of time to file a response.
-
Extension granted
The Tribunal granted an extension until 2 September 2022 for the respondent to file their response.
-
Response submitted
The respondent submitted their response via email at 16:44, within the extended deadline.
-
Default judgment issued
The judge issued a Rule 21 judgment in favour of the claimant, awarding £23,238.49, unaware that a response had been filed.
-
Reconsideration application
The respondent applied for reconsideration of the default judgment.
-
Reconsideration granted
The judge revoked the previous decision and allowed the claim to proceed to a final hearing.
The legal issue
Whether a default judgment should be set aside when the respondent had submitted a response within the extended deadline, but the tribunal had not processed it before issuing judgment.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the employer's application for reconsideration and revoked the default judgment. The claim will now proceed to a full hearing.
The key reason was that the employer had in fact submitted its response by the extended deadline of 2 September 2022, but due to administrative delay the tribunal had not processed it before issuing the default judgment on 8 September 2022.
No compensation was awarded as the judgment was revoked. The original default judgment had awarded:
- Basic award: £1,088.00
- Compensatory (immediate loss): £4,731.46
- Compensatory (future loss): £5,883.28
- Loss of statutory rights: £350.00
- ACAS code uplift (25%): £2,741.19
- Unpaid wages: £3,724.82
- Unpaid holiday (1 year): £2,406.82
- Document failures: £2,312.92
- Total: £23,238.49
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are an employer and receive a claim, file your response as early as possible to avoid last-minute administrative delays that could lead to a default judgment.
- If a default judgment is issued against you, you can apply for reconsideration if you can show you complied with the deadline, even if the tribunal didn't process your response in time.
- Tribunals expect parties to meet deadlines and will not routinely grant further extensions, especially if you have already had a generous extension.
- Keep proof of when you submitted your response (e.g., email timestamp) as evidence if you need to challenge a default judgment.
This case shows how a procedural mix-up can lead to a default judgment being issued against an employer who had actually complied with the deadline. The former employee had brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay and unpaid wages. The employer, Kisiel Limited, initially failed to respond but was granted an extension until 2 September 2022. It submitted its response on that day at 16:44, but the tribunal did not process it before the judge issued a default judgment on 8 September 2022, awarding £23,238.49.
What the employer did right
When the employer realised a default judgment had been issued, it promptly applied for reconsideration, providing a copy of the email showing the response was sent on time. The judge accepted that the employer had complied with the extended deadline and that it would be 'an affront to justice' to let the judgment stand. The default judgment was revoked and the claim will now proceed to a full hearing.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have avoided this situation entirely by filing its response well before the deadline, rather than at the last minute. The judge noted that the employer had had since January 2022 to prepare a response, and that filing at 16:44 on the final day risked administrative delays. For claimants, this case is a reminder that a default judgment can be set aside if the respondent can show they met the deadline, even if the tribunal didn't process it in time.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of keeping clear records of when documents are submitted. It also shows that tribunals will correct procedural errors to ensure cases are heard on their merits, rather than allowing technicalities to decide the outcome. For anyone involved in tribunal proceedings, the lesson is clear: meet deadlines early and keep proof of submission.
Similar cases
26-year employee's redundancy claim: late response from committee member refused
A tribunal refused a committee member's application to file a late response in a redundancy claim brought by an assistant playground leader with 26 years' service. The case will now proceed to a remedy hearing.
Care worker dismissed after raising concerns wins automatic unfair dismissal claim
A care worker who was dismissed after making a protected disclosure has won her automatic unfair dismissal claim after her employer failed to respond to the tribunal claim on time. She was awarded £15,722.
Late ET3 response accepted: tribunal considers inexperience and ill health
A tribunal granted an extension for a late response from an employer with no legal experience who was ill, accepting the ET3 one working day late due to a communication error by her daughter.
Late employer response allowed after mail sorting delay
A tribunal has upheld a decision to grant an employer an extension of time to submit its response, after the claim form was delayed in internal mail for several weeks.