Mr J Khasake v Digitalatto Ltd: 2217510/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay the claimant his wages for the period 1 June 2023 – 31 December 2023.[2]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of US$ 3,000 (net), being damages for breach of contract.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[1]There was no “miscommunication” about the start time of the hearing on 1 August 2024. The Tribunal on three separate occasions clearly communicated to the parties that the hearing would start at 10am (see written Reasons).[2]The fact that the respondent had miscalculated time difference between the UK and his location on the date of the hearing, and as a result sought to join the hearing late, after it had finished and judgment had been announced and sent for promulgation, is not a sufficient reason to set aside or vary the judgment.[3]In any event, the respondent’s defence and the evidence submitted by the respondent for the hearing were duly considered at the hearing. The defence was rejected with respect to the claimant’s claim for unpaid salary. It succeeded with respect to holiday pay and overtime. The Tribunal’s reasons for those decisions are set out in the written Reasons dated 7 September 2024.[4]Considering that the respondent was planning to join the hearing from abroad, when no permission to give oral evidence from abroad was sought or obtained by the respondent, the Tribunal would not have been able to hear the respondent’s oral evidence (see Presidential Guidance on Taking Oral Evidence by Video or Telephone from Persons Located Abroad https://www.judiciary.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/Presidential-guidance-evidence-from-abroad-April- 2022.pdf). Therefore, little (if any) prejudice was caused to the respondent by it not being in attendance at the hearing. Case No: 2217510/2024[5]Even accepting that the reason for the respondent not joining the hearing on time was a genuine mistake in calculating time difference with the UK by reference to GMT and not BST, nevertheless, the fact remains that the respondent has failed to attend the hearing at the ordered start time, and did not respond to the Tribunal’s calls and emails attempting to locate him until after the hearing had finished.[6]Finality of litigation is important principle, which must be observed unless there are compelling reasons to depart from it. I do not find that in the circumstances of this case the respondent’s mistake in calculating time difference between his location and the UK and as a result not attending the hearing is a sufficiently compelling reason to revisit the judgment made at the hearing.[1]On 1 August 2024, the Tribunal gave the Judgment that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay the claimant his wages for the period 1 June 2023 – 31 December 2023 and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the sum of US$ 3,000 (net), being damages for breach of contract. The Judgment was sent to the parties on 7 August 2024.[2]On 14 August 2024, the respondent requested written reasons for the Judgment, which were provided on 7 September 2024.[3]No application for a reconsideration was received from the respondent. As far as the Tribunal is aware, no appeal to the EAT was submitted by the respondent with respect to the Judgment.[4]On 1 May 2025, the claimant wrote to the Tribunal as follows: Dear Sir/Madam, In regards to a judgment made against Digitalatto ltd, I have been informed by the High Court Enforcement officers that they are unable to deal with the judgment due to the amount being in US Dollar currency because they can only deal with those in BGP. They therefore encouraged me to contact this office to request that the judgment amount be converted to GBP in order to allocate my case to HCEO. I humbly request assistance in this regard. Kind regards Joseph Khasake[5]In the circumstances I decided, on my own initiative, to reconsider the Judgment under Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The notice under Rule 70(3) was sent to the parties on 14 May 2025, stating: “Employment Judge Klimov, on its own initiative, proposes to reconsider the Judgment sent to the parties on 7 August 2024 and issue a fresh judgment in the same sum, converted to UK pound sterling at the applicable exchange rate at the date of the original judgment (1 August 2024), using the exchange rate, published on the UK government website (https://www.tradetariff.service.gov.uk/exchange_rates/view/2024-8), i.e. £1 = US$1.3033 The parties must write to the Tribunal and each other by 27 May 2025 with any representations they wish to make, including whether a hearing is necessary.”[6]The claimant responded on 19 May 2025, agreeing with the proposal. In his response the claimant wrote: “I would like to bring to the Tribunal's attention that we have come to this point where the amount must be converted because Digitalatto ltd CEO has refused to pay judgment amount on several occasions despite ET Financial Penalties team's intervention. I believe this kind of behaviour should be highly condemned.”[7]The respondent did not respond to the proposal. Neither party requested a hearing.[8]In the circumstances, I find that it is in the interests of justice to vary the Judgment by converting the awarded sum into British pounds at the applicable rate (as explained in my proposal, see para 5 above) to facilitate the enforcement of the Judgment. It appears that the respondent is not willing to meet its liability under the Judgment voluntarily, and the claimant’s efforts to enforce the Judgment have run into a stumbling block of the awarded sum being expressed in US$. If the Judgment is not varied as proposed, there is a real risk of the Judgment remaining unsatisfied.