Claimant v The Other Hare Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that on the undisputed facts (as the First Respondent failed to file a response), the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for a reason related to her maternity under Section 99 ERA 1996. The First Respondent entered liquidation two months after the response deadline and showed no good cause why judgment should not be entered.
The tribunal found that on the undisputed facts (as the First Respondent failed to file a response), the First Respondent discriminated against the claimant on grounds of maternity under Sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The First Respondent had sufficient opportunity to respond but failed to do so.
Facts
The claimant was employed by The Other Hare Limited and was dismissed for reasons connected to her maternity. She filed claims on 7 February 2024 after ACAS early conciliation. The First Respondent failed to respond by the 12 March 2024 deadline and entered voluntary liquidation on 15 May 2024, two months after the response deadline. The Second Respondent (the sole director) filed a late response and objected to default judgment but those objections related to minor naming errors and service issues. The liquidator was given notice and opportunity to show cause but did not respond.
Decision
The tribunal issued a default judgment under Rule 22 against the First Respondent, upholding claims of automatic unfair dismissal related to maternity and maternity discrimination. The tribunal found that on the undisputed facts, the factual elements necessary to establish both claims were made out. Remedy will be determined at a final hearing in October 2025, which will also address liability and remedy against the Second Respondent.
Practical note
A default judgment under Rule 22 can be issued for complex discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal claims where the respondent fails to respond and the claim form contains sufficient detail to establish the necessary factual elements, even if a co-respondent files a defence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301899/2024
- Decision date
- 26 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor