Mr H Whitehouse v Sprint Active Education Ltd (formerly known as Premier Active Coaching Ltd): 1304492/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in the period from 6 September 2022 to 14 December 2022.[2]The respondent shall pay the claimant £1,843.54 which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of tax and National Insurance.[3]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded.[4]The respondent shall pay the claimant £277.50 as damages for breach of contract. The figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.[5]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages by failing to pay the claimant for holiday accrued but not take on the date the claimant’s employment on 24 January 2023.[6]The respondent shall pay the claimant £601.50 The claimant is responsible for the payment of tax and National Insurance.[7]When proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. There were no exceptional circumstances that make an award of an amount equal to two weeks gross pay unjust or inequitable. In accordance with s 38 Employment Act 2002 the respondent shall therefore pay the claimant £555. Case No: 1304492/2023 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 Signed by:REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because[1]The ET1 Claim form (lodged on 7 June 2023) correctly addressed the claim to the registered address for the Respondent at that time on 12 June 2023.[2]The respondent only formally changed its address with Companies House on 9 April 2024. It remained in the same building but moved floors.[3]Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the respondent would have received the ET1 Claim form and associated Tribunal correspondence but chose to ignore it.[4]Further it is reasonable to assume that the respondent would and could have made arrangements for its post to be forwarded when it moved floors.[5]Whilst the respondent states it wishes to defend the claimant’s claim, it did not file a draft response and therefore there is no basis to assume it had any defence to the claimant's claim.[6]It is not in the interests of justice for this matter to be re-opened following the hearing on 16 September 2024 and the Judgment made. Case No: 1304492/2023 11.6R Judgment – Reconsideration refused – respondent - rule 72 Signed by: