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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The respondent, an individual with no prior experience of employment law, received the ET1 and sought advice from a solicitor.
- The respondent applied for an extension of time to submit her response, which was granted until 10 February 2023.
- The respondent's daughter failed to inform the solicitor of the extended deadline.
- The solicitor submitted the ET3 on 13 February 2023, one working day late.
- The ET3 was initially rejected as out of time.
- The tribunal allowed the reconsideration and accepted the response, noting the respondent's inexperience and ill health.
Timeline
-
Notice of hearing sent
The notice for the preliminary hearing was sent to the parties.
-
Solicitor instructed
Mr Winrow was instructed to act on the respondent's behalf.
-
Extension granted
The Employment Tribunal granted an extension of time to submit the response until 10 February 2023.
-
Extended deadline
The extended deadline for the response expired.
-
ET3 submitted
The respondent's solicitor submitted the ET3, one working day late.
-
Original decision
Employment Judge R Powell decided that the ET3 was out of time and could not be accepted without a reconsideration application.
-
Reconsideration application
The respondent applied for reconsideration of the rejection.
-
Reconsideration granted
Employment Judge R Powell allowed the reconsideration, extended time to 13 February 2023, and accepted the response.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to grant an extension of time for the respondent to submit her response to the employment claim, given that it was filed one working day late due to a failure to communicate an extended deadline.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the respondent's reconsideration application and extended time for the response to 13 February 2023, accepting it as valid.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent was an individual with no prior experience of employment law.
- She suffered from ill health during the relevant period.
- She relied on her daughter who failed to pass on the extended deadline to the solicitor.
- The delay was minimal (one working day) and the solicitor acted promptly once instructed.
No compensation was awarded as this was a procedural decision, not a final determination on the claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are an individual employer with no legal experience, seek advice early and ensure clear communication with your solicitor about deadlines.
- Ill health can be a factor in tribunal decisions on extensions, but you must still act promptly and explain the impact on your ability to comply.
- A short delay (e.g., one working day) may be excused if there is a good reason and the other party is not prejudiced.
- Tribunals consider the potential merits of the defence when deciding whether to accept a late response, but a weak case on one issue does not automatically bar extension.
What this case shows
This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in employment tribunals, even when the employer is an individual with no legal background. The respondent, a pub owner, received a claim but struggled to navigate the process due to ill health and inexperience. She sought solicitor advice and applied for an extension, which was granted. However, a communication breakdown with her daughter meant the solicitor submitted the response one working day late. The tribunal initially rejected it, but on reconsideration accepted it.
What could have been done differently
The respondent could have ensured that her daughter directly informed the solicitor of the extended deadline. A simple email or phone call would have avoided the delay. The solicitor, once instructed, acted promptly, but the lack of communication created the issue. The tribunal noted that the respondent's ill health and reliance on her daughter were mitigating factors.
Why this matters
This decision shows that tribunals will consider the circumstances of individual employers, not just large companies. A short delay caused by genuine error, especially when the respondent has acted in good faith, may be excused. However, the tribunal also noted that the respondent's defence on procedural unfairness was weak, so the extension does not guarantee success at the final hearing. For claimants, this means that even if a response is late, the tribunal may still allow the employer to defend the case.
Similar cases
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.
Charity shop manager dismissed days after querying pay: automatic unfair dismissal
A charity shop manager with just four months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after querying her pay. The tribunal awarded £17,956 in compensation.
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.