Mr Jaiden Nash

Case Summary

This is an EAT appeal against the ET's refusal to grant the respondent (Costco) an extension of time to submit its response to race discrimination and harassment claims. The ET found that the respondent's explanation for the 10-month delay (that it was unaware of the claim) was false, as tribunal correspondence had been received at the warehouse and ignored, and emails had been deliberately deleted by the General Manager. The EAT upheld the ET's decision, finding no legal error in refusing the extension.

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in refusing the extension of time. The respondent provided a false explanation for its delay, having received multiple items of tribunal correspondence at its warehouse address which were ignored and deleted emails from the claimant's solicitors which the General Manager deliberately removed from her inbox. Under Kwik Save principles, where a respondent presents a dishonest explanation for delay alongside serious procedural default over 10 months, and where findings of deliberate ignoring and deletion of correspondence were made, the refusal of an extension was within the proper exercise of the tribunal's discretion.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in refusing to grant the respondent an extension of time to submit a response
• •Application of discretion under Rule 20 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 to extend time for filing a response
• •Consideration of explanation for delay, balance of prejudice, and merits of defence under Kwik Save principles
• •Rejection of respondent's false explanation for failure to respond (claim of non-receipt of tribunal correspondence and emails)
• •Findings that correspondence was received at warehouse and ignored, and that emails were deliberately deleted by General Manager

Judgment approved by the Court for handing down Costco v Nash © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 85 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 85 Case No: EA-2024-000432-JOJ EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 11 June 2026 Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between COSTCO WHOLESALE UK LIMITED Appellant - and - MR JAIDEN NASH Respondent Paras Gorasia and Amritpal Bachu (instructed by Mills & Reeve) for the Appellant Anthony Johnston (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 2 June 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court for handing down Costco v Nash © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 85 SUMMARY Practice and Procedure The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to grant an extension of time for the respondent to submit a response. Kwik Save considered. Judgment approved by the Court for handing down Costco v Nash © EAT 2026 Page 3 [2026] EAT 85 HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER: The issue 1. The issue in this appeal is whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in refusing to grant the respondent an extension of time in which to submit their response. The judgment appealed 2. The appeal is against…