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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #late-response
- #extension-of-time
- #reconsideration
- #overriding-objective
Key facts
- The claim form was received on 27 June 2022.
- The respondent's ET3 response was due by 22 August 2022 but was submitted over 3 weeks late on 15 September 2022.
- The respondent explained that the claim form was not delivered to its office until 13 September 2022 due to mail sorting issues.
- The Legal Officer granted an extension of time for the response, and the claimant applied for reconsideration.
- Employment Judge Laidler upheld the Legal Officer's decision, finding the respondent's explanation valid and the delay not long.
Timeline
-
Claim form received
The claimant's claim form was received by the tribunal.
-
Claim served on respondent
The claim was served on the respondent at its correct address.
-
Response deadline
The deadline for the respondent to submit its ET3 response.
-
Claim form found by respondent
The respondent's employee found the claim form in the mail and passed it to HR.
-
Application for extension of time
The respondent applied for an extension of time to submit its response, along with a draft response.
-
Legal Officer's decision
Legal Officer Faisal Khan granted the extension of time.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Employment Judge Laidler upheld the Legal Officer's decision on reconsideration.
The legal issue
Whether the employer should be allowed extra time to file its response to an employment claim, given that the claim form was delayed in internal mail and the response was three weeks late.
The outcome
The tribunal confirmed the Legal Officer's decision to grant the employer an extension of time to submit its response.
The key reasons were:
- The employer provided a credible explanation: the claim form was lost in internal mail due to the building's mail sorting process and was only found on 13 September 2022, after which the response was promptly filed.
- The delay was relatively short (just over three weeks).
- The balance of prejudice favoured granting the extension, as the employer would otherwise be unable to defend the claim, while the claimant would not suffer significant prejudice.
No compensation was awarded as the decision was purely procedural.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should have robust mail handling procedures to ensure tribunal claims are received and acted upon promptly.
- A short delay with a credible explanation is more likely to be excused than a long or unexplained delay.
- Claimants should be aware that tribunals may grant extensions to employers if the delay is minor and the explanation is reasonable.
- The overriding objective to deal with cases fairly means tribunals will balance the prejudice to both parties when deciding on extensions.
When a late response is allowed
This case shows that tribunals can be lenient when an employer misses the deadline to respond to a claim, provided there is a good reason and the delay is not excessive. Here, the employer's internal mail system caused the claim form to go missing for several weeks, and the response was filed just over three weeks late. The tribunal accepted that this was a valid explanation, especially given that the employer acted quickly once the form was found.
What the employer did right
The employer promptly applied for an extension as soon as the delay was discovered, and submitted a draft response with the application. This demonstrated a willingness to engage with the process, which weighed in its favour. The tribunal also noted that the delay was not long and that refusing the extension would have prevented the employer from defending itself, potentially leading to an unjust outcome.
Why this matters for similar cases
This decision highlights that the rules for late responses are not as strict as those for late claims. While claimants must usually meet strict time limits, employers may be given more leeway, especially if the delay is due to administrative errors beyond their control. However, each case turns on its facts, and a longer or unexplained delay could still result in the response being rejected. The key takeaway is that tribunals will consider the overall fairness of the situation, not just the fact of the delay.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Withdrawn unfair dismissal claim: no power to revive after reconsideration
A former employee who withdrew her unfair dismissal claim against Landmark Space Ltd could not revive it, even after applying for reconsideration. The tribunal confirmed it has no power to set aside a withdrawal.
Judgments set aside after tribunal failed to phone absent respondent
A tribunal has set aside its own earlier judgments after admitting it should have telephoned the respondent before proceeding in their absence. The case will now be reheard.