Miss A Tsileipi v GTA Food Services Ltd: 1404074/2022
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1404074/2022
Between
Miss A TsiliepiClaimantGTA Food Services LTDRespondent
Before
Employment Judge A FrazerMr V P Dickson (instructed by Representative) for claimantNot participating in the proceedings for respondentDate 26 May 2023
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on the 12th of January 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 respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £212 gross. _______________________________ Employment Judge A Frazer Dated: 16 March 2023 Judgment sent to the Parties on 29 March 2023 For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 1404074/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss A Tsiliepi Respondent: GTA Food Services Ltd Before: Employment Judge Frazer Representation Claimant:Mr V P Dickson (Representative) Respondent: Not participating in the proceedings
REASONS
[1]I entered a default judgment against the Respondent on 16th March 2023 for £212 as no response had been received by the Tribunal. The Claimant issued a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages on 12th January 2023.[2]On 19th April 2023 the Claimant applied for a preparation time order under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and the Respondent had acted unreasonably, disruptively and in contravention of the Tribunal’s orders. The Claimant submitted that from the outset there had been continual requests for information. The Respondent had not provided any response to communications and had not presented a response to the claim, which had increased the costs of dealing with the matter. The total amount claimed was £1, 492.40.[3]Further to Health Development Agency v Parish [2004] IRLR 550 conduct of a party prior to proceedings cannot found a costs order or preparation time order. In respect of a respondent, therefore, it is only the conduct from the date of filing that may be considered. Further, the response having not been provided, it cannot be said that the response had no reasonable prospects of success. Case Number: 1404074/2022 2 Employment Judge A Frazer Date: 26 May 2023 Judgment Reasons sent to the Parties: 12 June 2023 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No: 1404070/ 2022 1404074/ 2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: Ms A Tsiliepi Mr G Kazakos Respondent: GTA Food Services Ltd UPON APPLICATION of the Claimant made by letter dated 13th June 2023 to reconsider the judgment on the Claimants’ application for a preparation time order dated 19th April 2023 sent to the parties on 12th June 2023 under rule 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[1]On 16th March 2023 I entered a judgment in default for Mr Kazakos (1404070/22) under rule 21 against the Respondent for the total sum of £2, 235.30. On 16th March 2023 I entered a judgment in default for Ms Tsiliepi (1404074/22) for £212.[2]On 19th April 2023 Mr Dickson applied for a preparation time order in respect of both Claimants in the sum of £1, 492.40. I issued a judgment which was sent to the parties on 12th June 2023 rejecting the application and providing reasons. By error I omitted Mr Kazakos from inclusion in that judgment. I relied on the authority of Health Development Agency v Parish [2004] IRLR 550 that conduct from the date of filing only can be considered to found any application for costs on the basis of conducting the proceedings ‘vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably’ under rule 76. As the Respondent had not presented a response and therefore ‘conducted’ the proceedings a costs order could not be made on this basis. Further I determined that it could not be said that the response was misconceived as there was no response.