Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / News / A debarring order will not always extend to a remedy hearing

The Court of Appeal has ruled, in Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes, that a company blocked from defending its liability in an employment tribunal should still be able to contest the compensation remedy.

Ms Hughes had issued claims for unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday pay and wages, sex discrimination and breach of contract.

The Defendant had failed to respond to the claim against it within the required timeframe, resulting in its ability to participate in any hearing being limited. Despite filing for an extension based upon the fact that the delay was due to staff sickness, at a preliminary hearing, Judge Emery found that the delay was unreasonable and refused to grant an extension.

The Claimant was eventually awarded £75,000 in total at tribunal, with claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, unpaid wages, sex discrimination and breach of contract being upheld.

The Defendant then launched an appeal against the decision on liability, as well as submitting an appeal against its exclusion from participating in the remedy hearing. Despite the liability appeal failing, the Court of Appeal determined that such a debarring order should not extend to a remedy hearing in such a significant claim. The Court of Appeal held that to allow a defendant to participate in a remedies hearing, albeit that liability had been determined against it was in accordance with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.

However, Lord Justice Bean clarified that it should not be an automatic right for a party precluded from defending liability to participate in the determination of quantum. Such a scenario should only arise exceptionally, where the level of compensation and complexity of the case can justify it.

This is an important decision for employers who are out of time to defend a claim as they could still be able to play a part in the level of compensation awarded to the Claimant.

This decision confirms that debarred defendants have a last opportunity to reduce the potential damage of a default judgment. However, this decision is of limited value in cases where the tribunal issued a default judgment covering both liability and remedy.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron