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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #extension-of-time
- #incorrect-address
- #lay-representation
- #triable-case
Key facts
- The Claimant submitted an ET1 with an incorrect address for the Respondent.
- The Respondent did not receive the claim form until mid-July 2023, after the ET3 deadline.
- The Respondent applied for an extension of time to submit its ET3 on 26 July 2023.
- The Claimant opposed the extension, arguing the Respondent was using delaying tactics.
- The Tribunal found the Respondent had a good reason for the delay and granted a 7-day extension.
Timeline
-
ET3 deadline
The deadline for the Respondent to submit its ET3 response.
-
Extension application
The Respondent applied for an extension of time to submit its ET3.
-
Recorded delivery sent
The Claimant's representative sent a recorded delivery letter to the address in the ET1.
-
Recorded delivery received
The recorded delivery letter was delivered to the Respondent.
-
Preliminary hearing
The Tribunal heard the Respondent's application for an extension of time.
-
New ET3 deadline
The Tribunal granted a 7-day extension, setting a new deadline for the ET3.
The legal issue
Whether to grant an extension of time for the employer to submit its response to the employment tribunal claim, considering the reasons for the delay and the interests of justice.
The outcome
The tribunal decided to extend the time for the employer to submit its ET3 response by 7 days from the preliminary hearing date.
The key reason was that the claimant's ET1 form contained an incorrect address for the employer, which caused the claim form to be served late. The employer had a good reason for the delay, and the tribunal considered the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary decision on procedure.
Lessons & takeaways
- Double-check the respondent's address on your ET1 claim form – an incorrect address can delay proceedings and work against you.
- If you receive a claim late due to an address error, apply promptly for an extension and explain the reason clearly.
- Lay representatives should be aware of procedural rules, such as the need to submit a draft response with an extension application.
- Tribunals will balance fairness to both sides; a genuine mistake by the claimant does not automatically prevent an extension.
A procedural hiccup with real consequences
This case shows how a simple mistake on a claim form can create complications. The former employee brought claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and unlawful deduction of wages. However, the address they provided for their former employer, Paragon Network Services Limited, was slightly wrong – it said Guildford instead of Gomshall, and omitted 'Kings Court'. As a result, the employer did not receive the claim form until after the deadline for its response had passed.
What the employer did right
Once the employer realised the problem, it acted quickly. It applied for an extension of time on 26 July 2023, explaining the situation. Although the application was initially defective because it did not include a draft response, the tribunal was satisfied that the employer had a good reason for the delay. The tribunal noted that the difficulties were caused by the claimant's incorrect address, not by any fault of the employer.
Why the result matters
The decision highlights that tribunals will apply the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly. Even when a claimant opposes an extension, arguing delaying tactics, a genuine error on the claim form can justify extra time. For anyone bringing a claim, this is a reminder to verify the respondent's address carefully. For respondents, it shows that prompt action and a clear explanation can salvage a late response. The case also underscores that lay representatives should familiarise themselves with procedural requirements, such as Rule 20, to avoid unnecessary hurdles.
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.
Handing over keys after lockdown refusal: words that amounted to dismissal
A studio sales administrator was unfairly dismissed when her employer asked for her keys after she refused to attend work during lockdown. The tribunal awarded £723, reduced by 50% for her own conduct.
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.