To be brief

Chap had to leave due to ill health and employer failed to pay outstanding holiday entitlement

Stage 1, 2 and 3 of the grievance procedure exhausted. Contacted HR who sent email to line manager to sort it, and nothing. Requests for total outstanding entitlement (Leave Card) ignored

Tribunal claim submitted. Respondent has 28 days to respond. Day before deadline (Today) solicitors send email to tribunal and myself as representative requesting a two week extension under rule 4(5) Industrial Tribunals rules and procedures 2005

My own thoughts are to send the sols and tribunal a rebuttal this evening objecting to the application. That being on the grounds they have had plenty of time from the start of the grievance procedure and the 28 days the sols have had it

They are only asking for a two week extension, am i being unreasonable in requesting judgement in default?

Does the person you are helping have a really strong claim?

What is the downside of waiting the 2 weeks?

No downside in waiting two weeks. This has been going on for three months. Grievance procedure exhausted now the sols have had 28 days to deal with this and nothing

The claim is a slam dunk win if they do not settle via a consent order

Then don’t oppose the application?

That way they may well settle within the 2 weeks, and if they don’t you look even more reasonable when it comes to the tribunal!

Then don’t oppose the application?

That way they may well settle within the 2 weeks, and if they don’t you look even more reasonable when it comes to the tribunal!

That is exactly my thinking on the matter. Quickest way to get the consent order signed and for them to send a cheque. Nothing stopping them just submitting a holding defence otherwise

Mant thanks, always best to get the opinions of others for objectivity

They may be wanting to get claimant to agree to a non discolsure agreement if they cough up and need the time for solicitor to concoct one. Is ill health any way employment related?

The other reason may be is that employer digging heels in and sols need the extra time to convince them they are being stupid by not just paying up as they are going to have to anyway

Still, wont make any difference to the outcome

To be fair have dealt with this solicitor on three previous occasions, all to my benefit. She knows when to convince them to settle with a consent order. This will be no different. Am showing her respect for our past communications

Is this in Northern Ireland?

Aside from that, last minute requests for a filing extension usually happens when clients have left things to the last minute, and don't speak to their solicitor with enough time for the solicitor to advise them properly and prepare a defence.

If the application is denied, you'll probably end up with a holding defence probably followed by an application to amend the defence later. That is a bit of a waste of time for everybody.

Mind you, if they haven't given a good reason for the delay you could always object to add pressure. There are costs sanctions for unreasonably refusing an extension in court proceedings, but very unlikely there would be any sanction in the employment tribunal context.

Just to bring this thread to a close

Yes it is Northern Ireland and agreed the two week extension.

Cheque received from the solicitors the morning in full and final settlement via a consent order

Why does it always take legal means to get redress when talking about a statutory right. How many man hours have been wasted just because the employer could not care less?

Because they're playing a game of odds; how many people fold before court vs risk of paying out. It's nothing to do with the merits of the case, just psychology.

A good solicitor will consider their obligations that are laid down in their membership of the SRA and that is an obligation to the courts first and then act in their clients best interests second. Many solicitors work in a way that suit their interests ( trying to make a name for themselves or just pushing up their fees). It looks as though this lot managed to eventually talk sense into a very recalcitrant employer, saving everyone a lot of time and trouble.

A good solicitor will consider their obligations that are laid down in their membership of the SRA and that is an obligation to the courts first and then act in their clients best interests second.

That isn’t quite what the SRA require though, is it?.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

Looking at their required outcomes, the first 2 are:

a) you treat your clients fairly;

b) you provide services to your clients in a manner which protects their interests in their matter, subject to the proper administration of justice;

Admittedly, looking at the 10 Principles, administration of justice does come before ‘client’ (but this isn’t actually a bad thing!)

1) uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;

2) act with integrity;

3) not allow your independence to be compromised;

4) act in the best interests of each client;

There is always going to be some interplay with conflicting pressures!

Of course it is in no one’s interest to allow a solicitor to put their desire to advance their client’s position ahead of

I) maintaining confidence in the legal process,

ii) by not circumventing the legal process.

Not being allowed to mislead the Court / act against proper administration of justice is only “put Court before client” in so far as preventing actions that would makes everyone sink to dirty tricks.

Are you really saying “I want the solicitor to put the client first in EVERY way for EVERY circumstance even if it means lying / cheating / not following the rules for administration of justice”.

In the end that serves no one, and certainly not the client, as all sink to the lowest common denominator.

you should know very well that is not what I was saying, by putting the courts interest before the anyone elses means you obey civil procedure regs etc. I couldnt be bothered to google the whole thing and then post up all of it so i paraphrased what the SRA have to say on this but by posting tranches of the documents you have shown that what I said is not incorrect The clients intersts then come after this, the solicitors should ahve no interest of their own.

How do you manage to read it the other way round? the words FIRST and SECOND are rather big clues as to the order of things

I read it as you saying "solicitor, puts duties to court ahead of client, what about the client's interests?", perhaps I was mistaken, but I was influenced by your subsequent "many solicitors just pad their fees/ do it for vanity" comments.

Whereas I parse it as: "solicitor puts individual clients interests as high as can do so without crossing the boundaries (duties to administration of justice) that protect everyone, and act in their clients interests above their own purely commercial interests once they agree to take a case on".

Fair enough if you are saying that is what a good solicitor should do.