Default judgment set aside: Matalan allowed to defend redundancy claim after missing deadline
A former Matalan employee won a default judgment for unfair dismissal and redundancy, but the retailer successfully applied to set it aside, sending the case back for a full hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #rule-21
- #default-judgment
- #reconsideration
- #duplicate-claim
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Matalan Limited from 3 November 2014 to 11 November 2020.
- The respondent failed to file a response within the time limit, leading to a default judgment on liability.
- A remedy hearing was held on 26 July 2021, but the claimant lacked documentation, so the hearing was vacated.
- The claimant later provided some documents, and a remedy award of £4,970.21 was calculated.
- The respondent successfully applied to set aside the default judgment and remedy judgment.
- The claimant's duplicate claim (case 3203326/2021) was struck out as accepted by the claimant.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work at Matalan Limited.
-
Claim issued
Claimant issued claim for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and holiday pay.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Default judgment on liability
Employment Judge Crosfill issued a rule 21 judgment finding claims well-founded.
-
New job started
Claimant started new employment.
-
Remedy hearing
Hearing listed for remedy; claimant attended without required documents; hearing vacated.
-
Remedy judgment
Regional Employment Judge Taylor awarded £4,970.21 total compensation.
-
Application to set aside
Respondent applied to set aside the default judgment.
-
Reconsideration hearing
Employment Judge Crosfill set aside previous judgments and granted extension for response.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Judgment issued setting aside earlier judgments and striking out duplicate claim.
The legal issue
Whether a default judgment obtained because the employer failed to respond in time should be set aside, and whether a duplicate claim should be struck out.
The outcome
The tribunal set aside the earlier default judgment on liability and the remedy award of £4,970.21, granting Matalan an extension to file its response. The case will now proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
The claimant's duplicate claim (case 3203326/2021) was struck out as accepted by the claimant.
No compensation was awarded as the remedy judgment was set aside.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers who miss the deadline to respond to a tribunal claim can apply to set aside a default judgment, but must act promptly and show a reasonable excuse.
- Claimants should keep all hearing documents and attend remedy hearings prepared with evidence, or risk the award being set aside.
- Filing duplicate claims is unnecessary and will be struck out, potentially causing delays.
This case shows how a default judgment can be overturned if the employer acts quickly and has a reasonable explanation for missing the deadline. The former employee, who had worked at Matalan for six years, claimed unfair dismissal and redundancy after being made redundant in November 2020. When Matalan failed to file a response, the tribunal issued a default judgment finding the claims well-founded and later awarded £4,970.21 in compensation.
However, Matalan applied to set aside the judgment just six days after the remedy award. The tribunal found that the employer had a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the employee would not suffer significant prejudice if the case went to a full hearing. As a result, both the liability judgment and the remedy award were set aside, and the case will now be heard on its merits.
What the losing side could have done differently
Matalan could have avoided this situation by filing its response on time. Once the default judgment was entered, the employer acted swiftly to apply for a set-aside, which was key to its success. For the employee, attending the remedy hearing without the required documents weakened her position and contributed to the judgment being vulnerable to challenge.
Why this matters
This case highlights that default judgments are not final if the employer can show good reason for missing the deadline. It also serves as a reminder for claimants to keep thorough records and attend hearings prepared. The outcome means the former employee will now have to prove her case at a full hearing, rather than relying on the default judgment.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal without response: default judgment leads to £10,405 award
A former employee won £10,405 after his employer failed to respond to his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found he was dismissed by reason of redundancy without proper notice or pay for accrued holiday.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Unfair dismissal and breach of contract: employer who failed to respond hit with default judgment
A former employee has won £4,467.57 after their employer failed to respond to an unfair dismissal and breach of contract claim, leading to a default judgment.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.