Esparon v Roucou and another
Surprises come in all shapes and sizes. For Ms Esparon and Mr Frederick, it was an unexpected demand for £220,000.
Ms Roucou claimed to have been employed by the couple, and she brought a number of complaints against them. No defence was filed and the tribunal issued default judgment, awarding her compensation of just over £220k. Shortly after, Ms Esparon and Mr Stephenson received a letter from Ms Roucou's solicitor telling them that enforcement proceedings were to begin. That, the couple claimed, was the first they had heard of the claim. As it turned out, the tribunal paperwork had been sent to the wrong address.
An application to have the default judgment reviewed was refused because it was out of time and it wouldn't be just and equitable to extend time. The couple appealed, successfully. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that it was arguable that: (a) there was a good explanation for the failure to lodge the ET3 (it having been sent to the wrong address); (b) the couple had a good answer to the claim - they said they never employed Ms Roucou; and, (c) the balance of prejudice lay with the respondents.
These factors, the EAT said, were all relevant and the tribunal had misdirected itself by not considering them. So the case will be defended after all.
Surprises come in all shapes and sizes. For Ms Esparon and Mr Frederick, it was an unexpected demand for £220,000.
Ms Roucou claimed to have been employed by the couple, and she brought a number of complaints against them. No defence was filed and the tribunal issued default judgment, awarding her compensation of just over £220k. Shortly after, Ms Esparon and Mr Stephenson received a letter from Ms Roucou's solicitor telling them that enforcement proceedings were to begin. That, the couple claimed, was the first they had heard of the claim. As it turned out, the tribunal paperwork had been sent to the wrong address.
An application to have the default judgment reviewed was refused because it was out of time and it wouldn't be just and equitable to extend time. The couple appealed, successfully. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that it was arguable that: (a) there was a good explanation for the failure to lodge the ET3 (it having been sent to the wrong address); (b) the couple had a good answer to the claim - they said they never employed Ms Roucou; and, (c) the balance of prejudice lay with the respondents.
These factors, the EAT said, were all relevant and the tribunal had misdirected itself by not considering them. So the case will be defended after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment