Miss C Z Harris v Koi Ki Harborne: 1308054/2023 Miss C Z Harris v Koi Ki Harborne: 1308054/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1308054/2023
Between
Miss C Z HarrisClaimantKoi Ki HarborneRespondentDate 14 May 2024
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 — Rule 21 1 . The claim was issued in the Midlands West Employment Tribunals on 23 November 2023. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The claimant's application to amend the claim made by email dated 20 December 2023 at 13:45 is unopposed and is therefore granted.[3]The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and is ordered to pay the claimant a sum of El 88.10 gross.[4]The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant additional compensation of 2501.60 gross for failure to provide them with written statement of employment particulars as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[5]The ACAS uplift claimed by the claimant was not pleaded and no application to amend the claim to include it has been made. This is therefore refused with no uplift applied.[6]The sum payable above is the gross amount to be paid and the respondent is responsible for deductions of any income tax and National Insurance contributions thereon.[7]The respondent must pay the claimant E689.70 in total.
REASONS
[1]I have undertaken preliminary consideration of the Respondent's application for reconsideration of the Judgment made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Law
[2]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the Judgment (rule 70).[3]Rule 72(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[4]The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714 in July 2016 where Elias LJ said that: “the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open-ended; it should be exercised in a principled way, and the earlier case law cannot be ignored. In particular, the courts have emphasised the importance of finality (Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395) which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily; and in Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384 Mummery J held that the failure of a party's representative to draw attention to a particular argument will not generally justify granting a review.”[5]Similarly in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 the EAT chaired by Simler P said in paragraph 34 that: “a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to reargue matters in a different way or by adopting points previously omitted. There is an underlying public policy principle Case No: 1308054/2023 in all judicial proceedings that there should be finality in litigation, and reconsideration applications are a limited exception to that rule. They are not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry…”[6]In common with all powers under the 2013 Rules, preliminary consideration under rule 72(1) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in rule 2, namely, to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues and avoiding delay. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication. The Application[7]The application simply asks for the judgment to be overturned and claims the Respondent has co-operated at every step amongst other irrelevant comments threatening the Claimant with legal action. However, none of what the Respondent says escapes the fact that there is no valid ET3 form on file. There was no application to extend time for ET3 submission. The response to the Claimant’s claim the Employment Tribunal did receive, was rejected and therefore the Claimant’s Claim was and still is effectively uncontested. No argument is put forward that a valid response was presented and there is no valid response on the Tribunal file.[8]Consequently, I can see no valid grounds to disturb the rule 21 Judgment. Conclusion Having considered all the points made by the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration is refused.