Adequate Reasons and Participation After Default Judgment
In Khan (Executor) v Vijendran [2025] EAT 125 a redundancy and holiday pay claim proceeded to default judgment after no ET3 was filed, and the tribunal refused the debarred respondent's requests for reasons and for permission to make written submissions on remedy. The EAT allowed the appeal, holding that even where liability is determined by default the tribunal must act fairly at the remedy stage. A debarred respondent's written submissions on quantum should ordinarily be considered, and the tribunal must give sufficient reasons showing the statutory route and evidential basis for any sums awarded. Refusing both reasons and the respondent's figures rendered the judgment unsustainable.
Read the full case note on 42BR →
Key authorities
- Khan (Executor) v Vijendran [2025] EAT 125
- Office Equipment Systems v Hughes [1990] ICR 854
- Talash Hotels v Smith (UKEAT/0191/13)
- Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449
Where this sits in a claim
Take this further
If this helped and you want more than the free guide, there are two ways to go further: