Mr S Jackson

Judgment approved by the Court Hypervolt Ltd v Jackson @ EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 45 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 45 Case No: EA-2024-001030-AS EA-2024-001031-AS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 5 th March 2026 Before: ANDREW HOCHHAUSER KC DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: HYPERVOLT LIMITED Appellant - and - MR S JACKSON Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr R Smith (Instructed by Peninsula Business Services Ltd) for the Appellant The Respondent appeared as Litigant in Person Hearing date: 5 th March 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court Hypervolt Ltd v Jackson @ EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 45 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE There is a mandatory requirement pursuant to rule 72(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 (the “ET Rules”) for an employment judge to determine whether there are reasonable prospects of a judgment being varied or revoked before seeking the other party’s response and the views of the parties as to whether the matter can be determined without a hearing, potentially giving any provisional view, and deciding how the reconsideration application will be determined for the purposes of rule 72(2). The Appellant appealed against the refusal of the Employment Tribunal (the “ET”) to extend time to submit a response and for reconsideration of a decision issued on 6 March 2024 under Rule 21 of the ET Rules....