IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL
IN THE MATTER:
LADBROKES BETTING AND GAMING LIMITED
ARTICLE 12 JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
TRD  189
Mrs. H G Griffin, Chairman
10 January 2019
(1) As a result of no Response Form having been presented on the expiry of the time limit in Article 8(1) of the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal (Procedure) Order 2016 (“Procedure Order”), the Claimant’s claim is
The Tribunal shall convene a Case Management Meeting to prepare for a remedies hearing.
1. The Claimant presented her Claim Form on 10 December 2018 complaining of indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability.
2. No response having been received from the First, Second and Third Respondents (together “Respondents”), I decided that a determination on liability in this matter could be properly made. Article 12 of the Procedure Order provides that I must therefore issue a judgment accordingly.
Decision on liability
The Claimant’s claim of indirect discrimination is successful against each of the Respondents.
4. I considered the English Court of Appeal’s decision in
Office Equipment Systems v Hughes  EWCA Civ 1842 for guidance on the extent to which the Respondents should be entitled to participate in proceedings, having failed to file a Response Form.
Hughes provides the following guidance:
“'There is no absolute rule that a respondent who has been debarred from defending an employment tribunal claim on liability is always entitled to participate in the determination of remedy. At the lower end of the scale of cases employment tribunals routinely deal with claims for small liquidated sums, such as under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (still commonly called the “Wages Act” jurisdiction) where liability and remedy are dealt with in a single hearing. In such a case, a respondent who has been debarred from defending under Rule 21 could have no legitimate complaint if the employment tribunal proceeds to hear the case on the scheduled date, determines liability and makes an award. Even in that type of case it would generally be wrong for the tribunal to refuse to read any written representations or submissions as regards remedy sent to it by the defaulting respondent in good time, but proportionality and the overriding objective do not entitle the respondent to a further hearing.
But in a case which is sufficiently substantial or complex to require the separate assessment of remedy after judgment has been given on liability, only an exceptional case would justify excluding the respondent from participating in any oral hearing; and it should be rarer still for a tribunal to refuse to allow the respondent to make written representations on remedy.'”
5. In this case, I am satisfied that it is not possible to determine the remedy without hearing submissions from the parties. It would, in light of
Hughes, be inequitable to exclude the Respondents from such a remedies hearing.
Both parties shall therefore attend a Case Management Meeting in due course to prepare for a remedies hearing.
Mrs. H. G. Griffin, Chairman
Date: 10 January 2019