HGV driver with 17 years' service: default judgment revoked after alleged resignation dispute
A default judgment for unfair dismissal was revoked after the employer argued it had informally requested an extension. The case will now proceed to a full hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #hgv-driver
- #alleged-resignation
- #default-judgment-revoked
- #extension-of-time
- #acas-conciliation
Key facts
- Claimant was employed as an HGV driver from 1 June 2005 to 23 September 2022.
- Claimant was dismissed on 23 September 2022 after receiving a letter accepting his alleged verbal resignation.
- Claimant denies having resigned and claims he was unfairly dismissed and not paid notice pay.
- Respondent failed to file a response by the deadline, leading to a default judgment on 19 April 2023.
- Respondent applied for an extension of time to file a response, which was granted on 23 May 2023.
- The default judgment was revoked and the case will proceed to a full hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an HGV driver with the respondent.
-
Dismissal
Claimant received a letter accepting his alleged verbal resignation; he was dismissed.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal and notice pay to the tribunal.
-
Claim served on respondent
Claim was accepted and served on the respondent with case management orders and a deadline for response.
-
Respondent's email to tribunal
Managing director wrote to tribunal about ACAS conciliation and requested extension of timescales.
-
Default judgment issued
Employment Judge Broughton issued a default judgment under Rule 21 due to respondent's failure to file a response.
-
Respondent filed ET3
Respondent submitted their response, claiming the February email was an extension request.
-
Remedy hearing (converted)
Hearing listed as remedy hearing but dealt with respondent's application to extend time and revoke default judgment.
-
Judgment on extension
Employment Judge Hutchinson granted extension, accepted ET3, revoked default judgment, and listed full hearing for September 2023.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to extend the deadline for the employer to file its response, after the employer missed the deadline but had sent an earlier email that could be interpreted as a request for an extension.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the employer's application to extend time and revoked the default judgment. The case will now proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
The key reasons were:
- The employer's managing director, who was not legally represented at the time, sent an email on 22 February 2023 that the tribunal accepted as a request for an extension.
- The employer had engaged in ACAS conciliation and had taken some steps, albeit late, to prepare a defence.
- The claimant did not suffer significant prejudice from the delay.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the case has not yet been heard on its merits.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you miss a tribunal deadline, act quickly and formally apply for an extension, explaining the reasons for the delay.
- An informal email may be treated as a request for an extension if it clearly asks for more time, but it is safer to use the correct form.
- Engaging in ACAS conciliation does not automatically extend tribunal deadlines; you must still file a response on time or apply for an extension.
- Employers who are not legally represented should seek advice promptly to avoid missing procedural deadlines.
What happened?
A long-serving HGV driver was dismissed after his employer claimed he had verbally resigned. The driver denied resigning and brought claims for unfair dismissal and notice pay. The employer missed the deadline to file its response, leading to a default judgment against it. However, the employer had sent an email before the deadline asking for an extension, which the tribunal later accepted as a valid request.
What could the employer have done differently?
The employer's managing director wrote to the tribunal on the deadline day, mentioning ACAS conciliation and asking for 'an extension of the timescales'. But he did not use the formal application process. The tribunal accepted that this was a genuine request, but a clearer, more formal application would have avoided the risk of default judgment. The employer also failed to take any further steps for two months, which could have been fatal to its case.
Why this matters
This case shows that tribunals can be flexible when an unrepresented party makes a procedural mistake, especially if they have shown a genuine intention to defend the claim. However, it also highlights the risks of relying on informal correspondence. For employees, a default judgment can be overturned if the employer has a reasonable excuse, meaning the case will still need to be proved at a full hearing.
Similar cases
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.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out for being 12 days late
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she presented it 12 days after the three-month deadline. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to have claimed on time.
HGV driver dismissed for watching YouTube videos while driving: claim struck out
An HGV driver with 10 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after a member of the public complained he was watching videos on his phone while driving. The tribunal struck out his unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Incorrect address on ET1 leads to extension for employer's response
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim faced a setback when the tribunal granted the employer extra time to respond, due to an incorrect address on the claim form.