When someone doesn’t send their defence to the Employment Tribunal, the case can go ahead without them.

But even then, the tribunal must still be fair — especially when deciding how much money is owed.

​That’s what happened in this recent EAT case.

A claimant won her redundancy and holiday pay claim because her former employer hadn’t sent an ET3 defence.
The employer had since passed away, and his executor tried to take part in the hearing just to check the figures.
The tribunal refused, saying he wasn’t allowed to say anything at all.
It then issued an order for payment but gave no reasons explaining how the amounts were worked out.

​The executor appealed — and won.

The EAT said fairness still matters, even when one side has defaulted.

“There is no absolute rule that a respondent debarred from defending liability is thereby prevented from being heard on remedy.”

In plain English: even if you’ve lost the case because no defence was filed, you can still have your written comments on the amount considered.

The judge also criticised the lack of explanation:

“A default judgment cannot be a licence for opacity.”

That means the tribunal can’t just list a figure without showing how it was reached.
​Both sides — and the appeal court — must be able to follow the maths.