Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes

Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes

In cases where liability is determined by default, a respondent should generally be permitted to make submissions on remedy, especially where the remedy is substantial or complex. Excluding the respondent from participating in the remedy stage was not justified in this case, and the tribunal should have invited submissions on quantum before determining remedy.

Parties
Appellant: Office Equipment Systems Ltd; Respondent (claimant): Ms Jane Hughes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (employment) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Sex Discrimination, Default Judgment, Remedy Hearing, Extension of Time, Costs
Employment Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Sex Discrimination Default Judgment Remedy Hearing Extension of Time Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Office Equipment Systems Ltd

Appellant

Ms Jane Hughes

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (employment) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a respondent debarred from defending liability in an employment tribunal is entitled to participate in the assessment of remedy.
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal erred in refusing the respondent the opportunity to make submissions on remedy after default judgment on liability.
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's case management discretion was properly exercised under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

Ratio Decidendi

In cases where liability is determined by default, a respondent should generally be permitted to make submissions on remedy, especially where the remedy is substantial or complex. Excluding the respondent from participating in the remedy stage was not justified in this case, and the tribunal should have invited submissions on quantum before determining remedy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Draft decision on remedy set aside
  • Case remitted to Employment Judge Beard (or other nominated judge) to consider remedy, with the company permitted to make submissions