Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawEmployment tribunals

British School of Motoring (BSM) v Fowler, EAT 24 February 2006

by Eversheds HR Group 18 Apr 2006
by Eversheds HR Group 18 Apr 2006

Be late at your own cost
British School of Motoring (BSM) v Fowler, EAT 24 February 2006

Background

Mr Fowler, a former manager with BSM, presented tribunal complaints of unfair and wrongful dismissal. Although BSM’s response to the claim on an ET3 form was due on 1 November 2005, no response was entered and, as a result, on 5 December, the tribunal said BSM could not participate in the proceedings.

A week later, a BSM representative wrote to say that the original tribunal papers had not been received and therefore it had no idea of when their response was due. The tribunal treated this letter as an application for review, and contacted Fowler’s solicitors for comment before dismissing the application without a hearing. BSM appealed.

The review

The 28-day time limit within which an employer must respond to a tribunal claim is strictly applied and, if not met, will normally result in the employer being barred from defending the claim. However, the tribunal can hear an employer’s application for the automatic barring to be reviewed, including the explanation for the delay, the merits of the defence, and possible prejudice to the parties of allowing or refusing an extension of time for entering a response. BSM alleged the tribunal had failed to do this, and should have sought further comment from BSM before deciding no review hearing was necessary. BSM considered this omission to be procedurally incorrect and unfair.

Appeal

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The EAT agreed that the tribunal had not adequately weighed up the issues on review or given BSM sufficient opportunity for comment. It ordered the tribunal to conduct a full review hearing to address whether BSM should be allowed to defend the tribunal claims. But the EAT also noted that the appeal proceedings were unnecessarily caused by BSM’s errors, and that they should therefore pay Fowler’s costs in full.

Comment

Employment tribunals have extensive powers to award costs against parties who behave unreasonably. Initially it was uncertain how employers that were late in filing their defence could challenge the tribunal over being prevented from taking part in the case. New tribunal rules allow a review to take place but, regardless of whether employers win or lose, they are now more likely to be penalised on costs for being late with their defences. This could prove expensive.

Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Rolls-Royce offers £500m sweetener to pension members to get all clear to close remaining final salary schemes
next post
Employers should work with government to reduce impact of sickness

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Restaurant tips should be included in holiday pay

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+