Direct International Ltd v HMRC: 2200266/2017
REASONS
[1]Ms Zhang appeared for the appellant company. She had resigned as a director on 7 August 2017. She said Mr David Lee asked her to attend but said that he no longer had anything to do with the company. She does not know who Daniel Lee is. Mr Daniel Lee has been in email communication with the Employment Tribunal using the email address suko155@hotmail.co.uk. This was an email address used on Ms Zang’s behalf when a postponement was sought on 21 December 2017. The Tribunal was left quite unclear as to the basis upon which Ms Zhang was representing the company and the veracity of what she said.[3]By section 19 of the NMWA 1998, an appeal against a notice of underpayment must be made within 28 days of the notice. In a submission raised for the first time at this hearing, the respondent pointed out that the appeal should have been lodged by 14 February 2017 having been personally served on 16 January 2017. The appeal was actually lodged on 15 February 2017. Certain employment statutes give the Tribunal a discretion to extend time on the basis of reasonable practicability or being just and equitable but there is no such provision in section 19.[4]The appeal having been lodged out of time, the Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the appeal is struck out. ......................................................... I D Truscott QC[1]In a Judgment dated 24 June 2019 but sent to parties on 19 July 2019, the Employment Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.[2]In an email to the Tribunal dated 1 August 2019, the appellant applied for a reconsideration of the Tribunal judgment. The claimant’s email provided authority for Ms Zang to appear on behalf of the appellant and also took issue with the calculations reached by HMRC.[3]Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 provides: “A Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. On reconsideration, the decision (“the original decision”) may be confirmed, varied or revoked. If it is revoked it may be taken again.”[4]In the reasons for the Judgment, paragraphs 3 set out the reason why the tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction. The email requesting reconsideration does not take any issue with that finding.[5]The Tribunal considers that there are no grounds for revisiting the judgment within the scope of its powers of reconsideration under Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.[6]The appellant’s application for reconsideration of the Judgment sent to the parties on 19 July 2019 is refused because there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision of the Tribunal being varied or revoked. Case No. 2200266/2017