The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a nanny, but brought a claim in the ET for arrears of pay and other payments. The Respondent entered an employer's contract claim in respect of expenses incurred on the Claimant's behalf. The Claimant failed to respond to the Respondent's employer's contract claim, and the ET granted default judgment in the Respondent's favour, taking into account the offset amount sought by the Claimant. The Claimant appealed on grounds including that the ET's decision to grant judgment on the Respondent's claim was perverse or in error of law because it failed to consider whether that claim was made out on the basis of the Respondent's case and/or because the ET failed to consider whether the Claimant should be permitted to participate in the hearing of that claim.

The EAT observed that judgment appeared to have been granted on the Respondent's claim simply because no timely response had been entered and no application made or granted for an extension of time, and it held that it was wrong for the ET not even to consider whether there was a proper basis to grant judgment on the Respondent's damages claim. Further, the Claimant had attended the hearing and was represented, and the ET should have actively considered whether she should have been permitted to participate. Accordingly, the whole judgment relating to the Respondent's and Claimant's claims would be quashed, but no decision would be substituted by the EAT. Both matters would be remitted to the same or a fresh ET.