Mr S Garnett v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd: 1402894/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed either(a) because he made a protected disclosure (s.103A ERA 1996) or because(b) he raised concerns of a health and safety nature (s.100(c) ERA 1996) is struck out.REASONS
[1]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £200 in respect of each of the claims identified as “(a)” and “(b)” above following a preliminary hearing held on 16 July 2019.[2]The Order was sent to the claimant on 5 Aug 2019; payment of the deposit sums therefore had to be made by 26 August 2019.[3]The claimant has failed to pay the deposits. The complaints of unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A and 100(c) ERA 1996 is therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[1]The Claimant is Ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs from 15 July 2019 arising from and occasioned by the unreasonable conduct detailed in paragraph 3 below. The Respondent’s costs in that period are summarily assessed at £3,195.24.[2]Having regard to the Claimant’s means, the Claimant is Ordered to pay £1,000.00 in respect of those costs.[3]The Claimant acted unreasonably in:-(a) Failing to attend the hearing on the 16 July 2019 without any proper cause and without giving prior notice to the Tribunal or the Respondent of his non-attendance.(b) Failing, thereafter, to comply with the Case Management Orders which were made on that date and subsequently.(c) Making a misconceived reconsideration application, causing the Respondent to incur further unnecessary cost in resisting the application. It was misconceived because it was presented significantly outside the permitted time limits, without any proper basis for failure to apply within the prescribed time limit.[4]The Claimant failed to comply with the Order of 30 October 2019 requiring him to respond to the Respondent’s application for costs and to provide evidence of his means to pay any costs Order. The Employment Tribunal Judge therefore had regard to the evidence of the Claimant’s means available from the Tribunal file, including the Claimant’s indication in his correspondence of 14 October 2019 that he was able to pay the deposit sums of £400. RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 1. The Claimant’s application by email dated 22 January 2020 for reconsideration of the Judgment of 8 January 2020 that he should pay £1000.00 towards the Respondent’s costs is dismissed on the grounds that it is not necessary in the interests of justice to permit reconsideration.[1]The interests of justice require the Tribunal to act in accordance with the Overriding Objective to deal with cases justly. The requirement to deal with cases justly requires the application of recognised principles including the finality of litigation, which is in the interests of both parties, dealing with cases in a way which is proportionate to their complexity and importance of the issues and avoiding delay and saving expense.[2]The Tribunal has a broad discretion when determining whether it would be necessary in the interests of justice to permit an application for reconsideration, but that discretion must be exercised judicially which requires the Tribunal to have regard both to the interests of the applicant and to the respondent to the application (see Outasight VB Limited v Brown [2015] ICR 11).[3]The Claimant seeks reconsideration of the Judgment in respect of costs on the grounds that the Tribunal did not take what the Claimant regards to be necessary or appropriate steps to notify him of the hearing on 16 July 2019. Case No: 1402894/2018[4]The grounds of the Claimant’s application for reconsideration do not relate to the grounds upon which the Judgment in respect of costs was made and do not engage with the grounds on which the Respondent applied for costs.[5]Consequently, it is not necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the Judgment on costs in the circumstances where the Claimant has not challenged the basis for that order.