Mr Sengelow v D M Oliver and Caravan Hire Ltd: 1405861/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]I have amended the name of the respondent from ‘The Caravan Hire Ltd’ to ‘Caravanhire Limited’ as requested by the claimant and in accordance with my power under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules. The address of ‘Caravanhire Limited’ on Companies House is where notice of the hearing was sent for the second respondent. The first respondent is the director of ‘Caravanhire Limited’.[2]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of unpaid wages during the period 30 May 2023 to 28 June 2023 is well-founded. The respondents are ordered to pay to the claimant the gross sum of £3,759.27 (calculated as the £3,135 for the entire period of 30 May to 28 June 2023 and £624 for underpayment of the period of 24 April to 29 May 2023).[3]The respondents failed in their duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the respondents are ordered to pay the claimant a total gross sum of £1,142 for two weeks’ gross pay (calculated as an average of £705 gross pay per week, but this award is capped at £571 per week). Case No: 1405861/2023 2REASONS
[1]The first respondent applied for a reconsideration of the judgment dated 12 April 2024 which was sent to the parties on 21 June 2024 (“the Judgment”). The application for reconsideration was sent via email on 12 February 2025.[2]Under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, an application for reconsideration must be made within 14 days of the date on which the decision was sent to the parties. The application was therefore not received within the relevant time limit.[3]Under Rule 5(7) the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, extend or shorten any time limit specified in the Rules or in any decision, whether or not (in the case of an extension) it has expired. In this case, I have decided to extend the time limit to allow this application.[4]The parties were given notice that I was minded to grant this application and amend the judgment to make it clear that the judgment was entered against the second respondent and dismissed against the first respondent. The claimant sent written objections on 22 April 2025, which I have considered in full.[5]The first respondent argues that the judgment ought to have been against the second respondent only because it was only the second respondent that was the employer of the claimant. The claimant objects on the basis that both respondents were named and involved in the proceedings, that the first respondent failed to attend the hearing, that this is a premeditated attempt to avoid liability, and that it is in the interests of justice and finality not to reshape the judgment after it has been given.[6]The grounds for reconsideration are only those set out in Rule 68, namely that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. I have decided to grant this application for reconsideration, as it is in the interests to do so because it was only the second respondent that was the employer of the claimant. Approved by: