Crouch v Ant Marketing & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Appearance or Response) [2011] UKEAT 0031_11_2402 (24 February 2011)

Crouch v Ant Marketing & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Appearance or Response) [2011] UKEAT 0031_11_2402 (24 February 2011)

The Employment Judge was entitled to treat the ET3 response as a joint response on behalf of both Respondents, and the conditions for issuing a default judgment were not met.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0031_11_2402
Parties
Claimant: Mr Crouch; Respondent 1: Ant Marketing Ltd; Respondent 2: Adam Jones
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Joint Response, Disability Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Joint Response Disability Discrimination Employment Tribunal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Crouch

Claimant

Ant Marketing Ltd

Respondent 1

Adam Jones

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a default judgment should be issued against Respondent 2 for failure to lodge a separate ET3 response
  2. 2 Whether the ET3 response lodged was validly on behalf of both Respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge was entitled to treat the ET3 response as a joint response on behalf of both Respondents, and the conditions for issuing a default judgment were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No default judgment issued against Respondent 2
  • No further orders