Hypervolt Ltd v Jackson (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) [2026] EAT 45 (05 March 2026)

Hypervolt Ltd v Jackson (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) [2026] EAT 45 (05 March 2026)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly consider the entirety of the appellant's applications, failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting the applications, and failing to apply the mandatory process required by Rule 72 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The decision was not 'Meek' compliant and did not address the reasonable prospects test or the points raised by the appellant.

Citation
[2026] EAT 45
Parties
Appellant: Hypervolt Limited; Respondent: Mr S Jackson
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time and Reconsideration of Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Reconsideration of Judgment, Default Judgment, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Adequacy of Reasons
Employment Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Reconsideration of Judgment Default Judgment Employment Tribunal Procedure Adequacy of Reasons

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hypervolt Limited

Appellant

Mr S Jackson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time and Reconsideration of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to extend time for response and reconsideration of a default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its decision
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal properly applied the mandatory process under Rule 72 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly consider the entirety of the appellant's applications, failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting the applications, and failing to apply the mandatory process required by Rule 72 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The decision was not 'Meek' compliant and did not address the reasonable prospects test or the points raised by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • Matter remitted to Regional Employment Judge Burgher to reconsider Hypervolt's applications and provide reasons and findings in accordance with the relevant Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and authorities.