Tweet
Hello,
I am currently at the beginning of my ET case with an ex employer.
They didn’t file a response in time and made an application for an extension which I opposed. They pretended that they had an issue with post, so I contacted the third party to ask about reported issues in the respondents postcode area over a 28 day period. The judge granted the extension on the basis of the representation made. I just received an email from the third party confirming they had no issues with delivery during this period. Can I now apply to strike out the response on the grounds that the Respondent’s reason was not factual and that was their sole reason for the extension being granted?
I was wondering if I could also bring in the rule 37(b) because they blamed a third party, another large company and also stamped the document to make it look like they just received it. I believe this conduct is scandalous and their approach to proceedings is shocking. 37 (c) they didn’t comply with the rules initially and abused the rules to make a claim for an extension based on something that isn’t true, and can be supported by third party evidence. I was then thinking that the overriding objective is to ensure fairness to both parties and I am now on an unequal footing, they are wasting time and money too. I also don’t believe a fair case can be heard now. Any other tips would be much appreciated! Thank you
I am currently at the beginning of my ET case with an ex employer.
They didn’t file a response in time and made an application for an extension which I opposed. They pretended that they had an issue with post, so I contacted the third party to ask about reported issues in the respondents postcode area over a 28 day period. The judge granted the extension on the basis of the representation made. I just received an email from the third party confirming they had no issues with delivery during this period. Can I now apply to strike out the response on the grounds that the Respondent’s reason was not factual and that was their sole reason for the extension being granted?
I was wondering if I could also bring in the rule 37(b) because they blamed a third party, another large company and also stamped the document to make it look like they just received it. I believe this conduct is scandalous and their approach to proceedings is shocking. 37 (c) they didn’t comply with the rules initially and abused the rules to make a claim for an extension based on something that isn’t true, and can be supported by third party evidence. I was then thinking that the overriding objective is to ensure fairness to both parties and I am now on an unequal footing, they are wasting time and money too. I also don’t believe a fair case can be heard now. Any other tips would be much appreciated! Thank you
Comment