Redundancy dismissal upheld after employer failed to file response on time
A former technical department employee was awarded £9,000 after his employer failed to present a response to his unfair dismissal claim within the time limit, and the tribunal refused an extension.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #selection-matrix
- #lock-out
- #insurance-dispute
- #extension-refused
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
- The respondent failed to present a response to the claim within the time limit.
- The respondent's application for an extension of time was refused due to an unsatisfactory explanation.
- The tribunal found the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant.
- The claimant was awarded £9,000 in compensation.
Timeline
-
Respondent contacts insurers
The respondent first contacted their insurers regarding potential claim.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation starts
ACAS Early Conciliation began, lasting until 16 January 2022.
-
Insurers dispute cover
The respondent's insurers disputed policy cover, but the respondent continued to rely on them.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Notice of Claim sent
The tribunal sent the claim to the respondent with a deadline of 6 April to respond.
-
Response not received letter
The tribunal wrote to the parties noting no response had been received.
-
Respondent contacts tribunal
The respondent wrote to the tribunal stating they believed insurers were handling the claim.
-
Tribunal suggests application
The tribunal suggested the respondent make an application for extension of time.
-
Extension application made
The respondent applied for an extension of time to present their response.
-
Hearing on extension application
The tribunal heard the respondent's application and refused it.
The legal issue
Whether the employer should be granted an extension of time to submit a response to the unfair dismissal claim, considering the reasons for the delay, the prejudice to both parties, and the merits of the defence.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the respondent, Spanjer Chemicals Limited, unfairly dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy. The key reason was that the respondent failed to present a response within the time limit and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The claimant was awarded £9,000 in compensation.
- Compensatory award: £8,500
- Basic award: not specified
- Total: £9,000
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are an employer, do not assume your insurers will handle a claim — check they have accepted cover and are acting within deadlines.
- A weak or unconvincing explanation for a late response can lead to the tribunal refusing an extension, even if the defence has some merit.
- Employees should be aware that if an employer fails to respond in time, the tribunal may proceed to a remedy hearing without the employer's input.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of employers responding promptly to tribunal claims, even when they believe their insurers are handling the matter. The former employee, who worked in the technical department, was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The employer, Spanjer Chemicals Limited, received the claim but passed it to their insurers, who disputed cover. Despite knowing about the potential claim since October 2021, the employer did not file a response until after the deadline had passed.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by ensuring that a response was filed within the 28-day time limit, or by applying for an extension sooner with a clear explanation. Instead, they waited until August 2022 to apply, after the tribunal had already set a remedy hearing. The managing director's explanation that they believed the insurers were handling the claim was not enough to persuade the tribunal, especially given the insurer's dispute over cover was known from January 2022.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that tribunals will not automatically grant extensions of time, particularly when the delay is significant and the employer's explanation is unsatisfactory. The tribunal applied the principles from Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain, balancing the employer's explanation, the prejudice to both parties, and the merits of the defence. While the employer's defence had some merit, the serious delay and lack of a good reason tipped the balance in favour of the claimant. For employees, this case shows that an employer's failure to engage with proceedings can lead to a quicker remedy.
Similar cases
Pandemic redundancies at Car Giant: tribunal upholds fair process
Three window fitters lost their jobs during the pandemic but failed to prove unfair dismissal or race discrimination. The tribunal found Car Giant's redundancy process was fair.
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
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.
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.