Council wins extension to defend discrimination claim after missing deadline due to non-receipt
A default judgment against Slough Borough Council was set aside after the council proved it never received the claim form. The tribunal granted an extension of time to present a response, allowing the case to proceed to a full hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #default-judgment
- #extension-of-time
- #non-receipt-of-claim
- #pandemic
- #remedy-hearing
Key facts
- The Claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination on 4 February 2021.
- The Tribunal sent the claim to the Respondent on 17 February 2021, but the Respondent says it was not received.
- A default judgment was entered on 16 June 2021 because no response was filed.
- The Respondent became aware of the claim in September 2021 and applied for an extension of time to present a response.
- The Tribunal granted the extension, set aside the default judgment, and allowed the Respondent to defend the claims.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, religious belief discrimination, and disability discrimination.
-
Claim sent to Respondent
The Tribunal sent the claim form to Slough Borough Council at its registered address.
-
Default judgment entered
Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto entered a default judgment because no response had been received from the Respondent.
-
Respondent notified of default judgment
The Tribunal emailed the default judgment to Surjit Nagra of the Respondent.
-
Application for extension of time
The Respondent's representative applied for an extension of time to present a response, stating they did not have the claim form.
-
Claim form sent to Respondent
The Tribunal sent the ET1 claim form to the Respondent's representative.
-
Response presented
The Respondent filed an ET3 and Grounds of Resistance.
-
Hearing on extension application
Employment Judge Douse heard the Respondent's application to extend time and set aside the default judgment.
-
Judgment granting extension
The Tribunal granted the extension of time, accepted the response, and set aside the default judgment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to extend the time for the council to file a response and set aside a default judgment, considering whether the council had a reasonable excuse for the delay and whether it would be in the interests of justice to allow it to defend the claims.
The outcome
The tribunal granted Slough Borough Council an extension of time to present its response and set aside the default judgment entered against it. The key reason was that the council did not receive the original claim form sent by post in February 2021 and only became aware of the proceedings when the default judgment was emailed in September 2021. The council applied for an extension promptly after that and filed its response within a few months. The tribunal found that the delay was not the council's fault and that it would be unjust to deny it the opportunity to defend serious allegations of discrimination and unfair dismissal, especially given the potential value of the claim (£132,032). The default judgment was therefore set aside, and the case will proceed to a full hearing.
No compensation was awarded as this was a procedural decision, not a final determination on the merits.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are a respondent and do not receive a claim form, act as soon as you become aware of proceedings to request an extension of time – prompt action is key.
- Tribunals will consider the overriding objective to deal with cases justly, which includes allowing a respondent to defend serious allegations if they have a reasonable excuse for missing the deadline.
- Claimants should ensure they have proof of delivery when serving documents, as non-receipt can lead to delays and set-aside of default judgments.
- Even if a default judgment is entered, it can be set aside if the respondent can show they were not at fault and have a meritorious defence.
When a claim goes missing in the post
This case shows what can happen when a tribunal claim form goes astray in the post. The former employee, who had been on a fixed-term contract, brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination against Slough Borough Council. The tribunal sent the claim to the council's registered address in February 2021, but the council said it never arrived. As a result, no response was filed, and a default judgment was entered in June 2021, meaning the claims automatically succeeded without a hearing.
The council's belated response
The council only found out about the claim when the default judgment was emailed to them in September 2021. They immediately applied for an extension of time to file a response, explaining they had not received the original claim form. The tribunal accepted that the council had a reasonable excuse for the delay and that they had acted promptly once aware. The response was eventually filed in January 2022, and the tribunal set aside the default judgment, allowing the case to proceed to a full hearing.
What this means for similar cases
This decision highlights the importance of the overriding objective in tribunal proceedings – to deal with cases justly and fairly. Even where a default judgment has been entered, a respondent can still be given a second chance if they can show they were not at fault for missing the deadline and have a genuine defence. For claimants, it is a reminder to ensure that service of documents is tracked and confirmed, as non-receipt can unravel an apparent victory. The case will now go to a full hearing where the merits of the discrimination and unfair dismissal claims will be examined.
Similar cases
Default judgment leads to £11,759 award for unfair dismissal and wage deductions
A former employee of Italia2U Limited won over £11,700 after the company failed to respond to their tribunal claim, resulting in a default judgment and a remedy hearing.
Redundancy dismissal without a response: default judgment leads to remedy award
A former employee won his unfair dismissal claim by default after Lex Machinery Limited failed to respond. He was awarded £5,989.65 in total, including redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay, and compensation for loss of earnings.
Sewing machinist wins £20,891 after being sole redundancy despite promised mass layoff
A Norwich tribunal awarded £20,891.76 to a sewing machinist who was unfairly selected for redundancy when her employer closed the business but only dismissed her. The award included a 20% uplift for breaching the ACAS Code of Practice.
Employer granted extension to defend claim despite missing deadline
A tribunal granted an employer's late application to defend a claim but ordered it to pay costs for unreasonable conduct, while dismissing a wasted costs application against its former representative.