Mrs K Tucker and Miss J Taffs v Mr K Johnson: 1401253/2022 and 1400969/2022
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on the 6th of April 2022. 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 respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £106 gross.[3]The hearing listed on 17th of March 2023 is cancelled. Employment Judge Gray Date: 25 May 2022 Judgment sent to the parties: 15 June 2022 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number: 1401253/2022 and 1400969/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss J Taffs(1) Mrs K Tucker(2) Respondents: Mr K Johnson Heard at: Southampton On: 24 February 2023 Before: Employment Judge Self Appearances For the Claimant: In Person For Respondent : No Attendance and No Appearance entered[1]The Claimant (1)’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages and failure to pay the minimum wage is postponed until 10 a.m. on 4 May 2023. A separate notice of hearing will be sent out in due course. that she was directly discriminated against because of her race is not well founded and is dismissed.[2]Claimant (1) shall send to the Tribunal a statement dealing with the issue of status by no later than 17 March 2023.REASONS
[1]The Claim of the First Claimant was listed before me today. She claims that she is due £784.90 in respect of unpaid wages and a further £6.56 in relation to a failure to pay her at the Minimum Wage. The named Respondent has not entered a Response and so as the Claimant has provided a clear basis for why she is owed the sums claimed which I have looked at and consider accurate there should have been little problem with dealing with this case swiftly. Case Number: 1401253/2022 and 1400969/2022[2]Unfortunately I have not been able to do that and whilst highly unfortunate to delay a final resolution to the claims there are matters that have arisen which need to be dealt with prior to any Judgment being entered.[3]I will deal with the background comprehensively in order to assist my colleagues when they come to consider matters that I shall refer to them for consideration. I apologise for adding to their work load.[4]On 10 March 2022 Ms Taffs issued a Claim Form identifying Mr Johnson as her employer between 26 September 2021 and 1 January 2022. Within her Claim Form she identified by first name only (Kylie) a potential second Claimant. In fact that was Mrs Kylie Tucker who brought her own claim against Mr Johnson on 2 April 2022.[5]There were similarities I the claims in that both worked from the same premises and both were asserting an under payment of wages by Mr Johnson and an Order was made on 5 May 2022 that both Claims should be heard together. On all the documents I have seen that was an entirely sensible course of action.[6]The first problem arises in relation to ACAS Early Conciliation. Ms Taffs named Coffee Stop Poole Limited on the ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate which was, of course, at variance with the name on the Claim Form and so fell within the auspices of Rule 12 (1) (f) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of procedure) Regulations 2013 (Schedule 1).[7]On 31 March the Claimant was alerted to the mismatch by EJ Gray and asked to confirm who the correct respondent was – the individual or the Limited company. By return the Claimant responded and indicated that Mr Johnson was the director of the Limited company and that she contended that Mr Johnson was her employer with out providing any reasoning for that conclusion.[8]It is not clear to me whether or not the matter was referred to EJ Gray for further consideration about the mismatch point but it seems to me that a decision was made that the Claim could be accepted. The process tat should have been adopted was that a judge should have considered that if the Claim was of a kind described at Rule 12 (1) (f) the Claim should be rejected “unless the Judge considers that the Claimant has made an error in relation to a name and the interests of justice” meant that the Claim should proceed (Rule 12 (2A).[9]I will refer the matter back to EJ Gray for him to see if he can recall whether or not he made that decision. If he recalls that he was seized of that decision then I would ask him to consider whether, in light of correspondence from the Claimant dated 24 June 2022, whether he wishes to reconsider that decision. In the event that EJ Gray did not make a decision on the Rule 12 (2A) point then it would appear that the proper process has not been followed by failing to Case Number: 1401253/2022 and 1400969/2022 refer the same to him and the issue remains at large and I will make a ruling on that issue.[10]The same issue in relation to the Claim relating to the Second Claimant. These claims were ordered to be heard together because of their commonality of fact. The Second Claimant also failed to name Mr Johnson on the ACAS EC Certificate. The same issue as to who the employer was pertains to the Second claimant’s case as well. EJ Rayner on the information before her considered that there was an error in relation to the name and that it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim.[11]I do not consider that there is any need to refer the matter to EJ Rayner as there is nothing that is in the email of the First Claimant that would impact upon her decision that the Second Claimant had made an error.[12]Where there is a possible need to reconsider is in respect of the Judgment made by EJ Gray to award the Claimant £106 against Mr Johnson on 16 June 2022. These claims were ordered to be heard together and so the information in both claims should have been before EJ Gray when making his decision. Information has come to light from the First Claimant in her 24 June 2022 email which it seems to me that EJ Gray may wish to look at and to ask himself whether any reconsideration is required of that Judgment in light of the information about the correct employer.[13]In addition, the Claims were meant to be determined together but were not for reasons I cannot ascertain from the file and EJ Gray may wish to consider whether his final Judgment made in the absence of the other conjoined claim might also be a ground for reconsideration.[14]I have relisted the First Claimant’s claim for hearing on 4 May 2023 for two hours and will review that once EJ Gray has considered the matters I have referred to him. Employment Judge Self Date: 24 February 2023 Judgment sent to the parties: 24 March 2023 For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 1401253/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs K Tucker Respondent: Mr Kian Johnson[1]This claim had been consolidated with 1400969/2022 a claim brought by Miss J Taffs against the same Respondent.[2]By Judgment dated 24 February 2023 Employment Judge Self heard claim 1400969/2022. He determined that the Miss J Taffs’ claim for unlawful deduction of wages and failure to pay the minimum wage should be postponed until 10 a.m. on 4 May 2023.[3]In his judgment he identified that the claim, although served on the Respondent, did not have an ACAS certificate in the name of that Respondent.[4]This matter was drawn to the attention of Employment Judge Gray as the same issue appeared to apply to this claim. The ACAS certificate is in the name of a Company and not the individual.[5]Employment Judge Rayner had directed at the vetting stage that this claim should be served on the company. However, for reasons that are not apparent on the Tribunal file, the claim was then issued against the named individual. As no response was received it was directed that a rule 21 Judgment could be issued against the Respondent which is the judgment now subject to this reconsideration.[6]By correspondence to the parties sent on the 15 March 2023 it was confirmed that Employment Judge Gray was proposing to reconsider the Rule 21 Judgment made against Kian Johnson and dated the 25 May 2022, pursuant to Rules 70, 72 and 73 of the Employment Tribunal Rules ofProcedure.
[7]In accordance with Rule 73 the Employment Judge informed the parties that the reasons why the Judgment is being reconsidered on the Tribunal’s own initiative is that it appears the claim should not have been served on Kian Johnson as the ACAS certificate relied upon by the Claimant names The Coffee Stop Poole. Therefore, it is considered that the Rule 21 Judgment against Kian Johnson should be revoked.[8]It was also confirmed that the Employment Judge considered that a hearing was not necessary in the interests of justice to determine the reconsideration but (in accordance with Rule 72(2)) gave the parties reasonable opportunity to make written representations. The Judge requested that the parties provide any written representations they wish to make by the 28 March 2023, and that they copy any response they do make to the other party at the same time.[9]No correspondence has been received from the parties.[10]The grounds for reconsideration are only those set out in Rule 70, namely that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. In view of the undisputed matters in this claim, in particular that the claim should not have been served on Kian Johnson as the ACAS certificate relied upon by the Claimant names The Coffee Stop Poole, it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the Rule 21 Judgment and revoke the same.[11]That judgment is therefore now revoked and this claim, which remains consolidated with 1400969/2022, can proceed for determination on the 4 May 2023. _____________________________ Employment Judge Gray Date: 4 April 2023 Judgment sent to the parties on For the Tribunal Office Case Nos: 1400969/2022 1401253/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants:(1) Miss J Taffs(2) Mrs K Tucker Respondent: Mr Kian Johnson Heard at: Bristol (by video) On: 4 May 2023 Before: Employment Judge Midgley Representation Claimants: Both in person Respondent: No attendance or representationProcedure.
[1]The claimants were employed by the respondent and not Coffee Stop Poole Ltd.[2]The claimants’ claims for unauthorised deduction of wages are well founded FURTHER UPON it being unclear whether notice of the hearing was served upon the respondent AND FURTHER UPON claim 1401253/2022 having been served upon the respondent at his business address and not his personal address IT IS ORDERED THAT:Procedure.
[1]The claims and this Judgment shall be re-served upon the respondent at his personal address. Case Nos: 1400969/2022 1401253/2022[2]Unless the respondenta. Applies for reconsideration of this Judgment within 14 days of the service of the Judgment and the claims upon him pursuant to Order 1 above Default Judgment in claim No 1400969/2022 will be entered against him for the full amount claimed.b. Presents a response to claim 1401253/2022 within 28 days, Default Judgment will be entered against him for the sums claimed. _____________________________ Employment Judge Midgley Date 4 May 2023 Judgment sent to the parties on 18 May 2023 For The Tribunal Office Case Number: 1401253/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs K Tucker Respondent: Mr K JohnsonProcedure.
[1]By a letter dated 9th April 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because: The claimant had not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 25th September 2025. It has not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The claim is therefore struck out. Approved by: