Mr C Racz v Kasko Parts Services Ltd: 2300125/2023
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 09 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 £8,117.25 gross.[3]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent must pay damages to the claimant of £546.25 gross.[4]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and must pay the claimant £1,484.37 net.[5]The respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of initial employment particulars pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.The claimant’s claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 succeeds. The respondent must pay the minimum damages of 2 weeks to the claimant in the sum of £1,092.50 gross.[6]The respondent must pay the claimant £11,240.37 in total.[7]The hearing listed on 27 June 2023 is cancelled. _____________________________ Employment Judge Wright Date: 17 May 2023 Case No: 2300125/2023 11.12 Judgment on reconsideration – no hearing - rules 70 and 73 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr C Racz Respondent: Kasko Parts Services Ltd UPON APPLICATION made by letter dated 12/6/2023 to reconsider the judgment dated 17/5/2023 under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and without a hearing, The Judgment dated 12/6/2023 is revoked.[2]Although the claims are not identical, the claimant had presented a claim against the same respondent in the London East Tribunal (3205773/2022) on the 2/12/2022. The claimed ‘other payments’ and referred to: being paid under the national minimum wage; not receiving a payslip; failure to pay holiday pay and an underpayment of wages, in respect of overtime. He also referred to a general underpayment of wages.[3]That claim was heard on the 25/5/2023. The respondent’s director attended and the claimant did not attend. The Judgment was promulgated on 31/5/2023. The claim was dismissed.[4]The claim in London South was presented on the 9/1/2023 (the claimant used the same Acas early conciliation certificate). The claim was for: notice pay, holiday pay and ‘other payments’. The particulars of claim referred to: a failure to provide written terms and conditions of employment; wrongful dismissal (notice pay); unauthorised deductions from wages; and holiday pay. The claim was served upon the respondent on 18/1/2023 and response was due to be presented on 15/2/2023. No response was received. The respondent said the second claim form was not received. That is accepted as in the London East claim, the respondent responded to that claim. Case No: 2300125/2023 11.12 Judgment on reconsideration – no hearing - rules 70 and 73[5]The London South claim was referred on the 16/5/2023 and considered by an Employment Judge on 16/5/2023. The Employment Judge authorised a Judgment to be issued under Rule 21 and the Judgment was promulgated on the 27/5/2023. This was done in complete ignorance of the claim in London East.[6]The respondent then applied for a reconsideration and the process under Rules 70 to 72 was undertaken.[7]Upon reconsideration, the claimant’s claim in the London South Employment Tribunal is an abuse of process following the rule in Henderson v Henderson [1843-1860] All ER Rep 378. All of the same facts and claims made in the London South claim could have been raised in the London East claim. There is no explanation for the second claim, presented just over a month later. The second claim has taken up Tribunal resources unnecessarily.