IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL
IN THE MATTER:
LADBROKES BETTING AND GAMING LIMITED
12 JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
H G Griffin, Chairman
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 successful.
The Tribunal shall convene a Case Management Meeting
to prepare for a remedies hearing.
The Claimant presented her Claim Form
on 10 December 2018 complaining of indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability.
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
Claimant’s claim of indirect discrimination is successful against each of
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
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.
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.'”
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,
Date: 10 January 2019