Thorney Golf Centre Limited v Andrew Reed & Anor

Thorney Golf Centre Limited v Andrew Reed & Anor

The tribunal erred by failing to consider and weigh the extent of the prejudice caused by the original lateness of the response as at the point when the application to extend time was made, and by confining its consideration of prejudice to the respondent to the issue of whether the claims were in time, without considering the prejudice of not being able to contest the substantive merits. The appeal against the refusal to extend time is allowed, and the substantive decision is set aside as a consequence.

Parties
Appellant: Thorney Golf Centre Limited; Respondent: Andrew Reed; Respondent: Roland Reed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decisions on Extension of Time for Response and Substantive Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decisions set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Response, Late Submission of Response, Practice and Procedure, Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Strike Out Applications, Case Management, Participation Rights Under Rule 21
Employment Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Response Late Submission of Response Practice and Procedure Unfair Dismissal Disability Discrimination Strike Out Applications +2 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thorney Golf Centre Limited

Appellant

Andrew Reed

Respondent

Roland Reed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decisions on Extension of Time for Response and Substantive Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in refusing an extension of time for the respondent's late response
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to properly consider the prejudice to both parties in refusing the extension
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal erred in its approach to the claimants' evidence and procedural management

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred by failing to consider and weigh the extent of the prejudice caused by the original lateness of the response as at the point when the application to extend time was made, and by confining its consideration of prejudice to the respondent to the issue of whether the claims were in time, without considering the prejudice of not being able to contest the substantive merits. The appeal against the refusal to extend time is allowed, and the substantive decision is set aside as a consequence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decisions set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • The first appeal (refusal to extend time for response) is allowed.
  • The second appeal (substantive decision) is consequentially allowed.