Mrs A Matthews v Let Us Care 4U Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and Mr M A Iftikhar: 1310246/2020
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s complaint of direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 is well-founded and succeeds against the First and Second Respondents. The Claimant’s complaints in relation to six days unpaid holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998, for breach of contract in respect of one-months’ notice pay and for unauthorised deductions of wages for the period 1 – 9 October 2020 are well-founded and succeed against the First Respondent. The Claimant’s complaint of harassment related to sex under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 against the First and Second Respondents is dismissed. The Claimant’s complaint in respect of detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against the First and Second Respondents is dismissed. The Claimant’s complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against the First Respondent is dismissed. The Claimant’s complaint in respect of unauthorised deductions of wages in relation to all night sleep pay against the First Respondent is dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The Claimant’s complaint of direct race discrimination or harassment under section 13 or section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 against the First and Second Respondents is dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. Case No: 1310246/2020 The Claimant’s complaint of direct religious discrimination or harassment under section 13 or section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 against the First and Second Respondents is dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The First and Second Respondent are jointly and severally liable to the Claimant and are ordered to pay the Claimant a sum of £4,500 for injury to feelings in respect of the complaint of direct sex discrimination. The First Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the following sums:[1]Six days unpaid holiday pay (calculated as a net sum) = £743.16[2]Seven days wages for the period 1 – 9 October 2020 (calculated as a net sum) = £867.02[3]One months’ notice pay (calculated as a net sum) = £2,683.63[4]Failure to provide written statement of particulars (four weeks’ pay at a rate of £538 per week) = £2,152.00 Employment Judge Platt 31 May 2023 Case number: 1310246/2020 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs A Matthews Respondents: Let Us Care 4U Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) (First Respondent) and Mr M A Iftikhar (Second Respondent)REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked for the reasons set out below. The Respondents have not indicated whether their application has been copied to the Claimant. The Second Respondent, Mr Iftikhar, sent an email to the Tribunal on 14 June 2023 seeking a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s judgment on the basis of a belief that none of the information he sent to the Tribunal by email on 21 May 2023 reached the Judge and had been considered. Mr Iftikhar now seeks the opportunity to present himself and provide all the evidence in person. The Respondents’ Response was struck out by Employment Judge Harding in a judgment dated 5 July 2022 sent to the parties on 8 August 2022. This followed a Preliminary Hearing on 16 June 2022 at which neither Respondent was present where Employment Judge Camp issued a Strike Out Warning on the basis that the Response was not being actively pursued and gave the Respondents until 21 June 2022 to explain their position. They did not do so. Under Rule 21(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 the Respondents were entitled to receive notice of any hearings and decisions but were only permitted to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Judge. The Respondents were notified of the final hearing on 8 August 2022 and on 15 May 2023 (by correspondence sent to the liquidator). They chose not to attend the final hearing. On 21 May 2023 Mr Iftikar sent an email to the Tribunal setting out an overview of the Respondents’ position. This email attached a chronology and a copy of the Case number: 1310246/2020 2 of 2 Respondents’ Response dated 6 March 2021. This email was not copied to the other party but was received by the Tribunal and seen by the Judge. The basis for the application for reconsideration is the Respondents belief that the information sent by email on 21 May 2023 was not considered by the Tribunal. However, the Respondents’ Response was previously struck out because it was not actively pursued. It is not open to the Respondents to seek to have their Response considered many months after it has been struck out. The Respondents chose not to attend and present themselves at the final hearing. The basis for the application for reconsideration appears to be that the Respondents do not agree with the outcome. This is not a valid ground for reconsideration and it would not further the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly to reconsider the Tribunal’s decision. This is a case in which the parties and the interests of justice are best served by finality of litigation and in particular confirming the Tribunal’s judgment.