Mr A Tihomirov and Ms K Jaroszewska v Cognithan Ltd: 2301698/2021 and 2302068/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The First Claimant’s claims of:1.1 unlawful deductions from his wages regarding(i) his notice pay,(ii) a “deposit” and(iii) a coronavirus supplement;1.2 losses flowing from late payment of his wages; and1.3 breach of contract by the Respondent requiring him to perform duties outside of the its scope, are struck out.[2]The Second Claimant’s claims of:2.1 unlawful deductions from her wages regarding(i) her notice pay,(ii) a coronavirus supplement and(iii) other unspecified deductions;2.2 losses flowing from late payment of her wages;2.3 constructive unfair dismissal;2.4 unlawful discrimination on the basis of nationality; and Case No: 2301698/2021 and 2302068/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: (1) Mr A Tihomirov (2) Mrs K Jaroszewska Respondent: Cognithan Heard at: London South in public (hybrid hearing ) On: 13/11/23 Before: Employment Judge McLaren Representation Claimants: In person Respondent: Ms D Braddon, HR Director[1]The respondent’s application under rule 37 (c ) or 37 (e) to strike out the claims of discrimination brought by both claimants is refused.[2]The first claimant’s claims of unlawful deduction from his wages in connection with unpaid holiday pay and underpayment of wages is struck out the claimant has failed to pay the ordered deposit.[3]The second claimant’s claims of unlawful deduction from wages and connects with unpaid holiday pay is struck out as the claimant has failed to pay the ordered depositREASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because.[1]The Judgment arose as neither claimant paid the ordered deposit.[2]The first claimant appeals because he said he was unaware of how to make the payment of the deposit and had not received information. The deposit orders are shown on the tribunal’s record as having been sent on 21 June and they were accompanied with instructions on how to make payment. Failure to understand how to make a payment is not sufficient grounds for a judgement to be reconsidered.[3]The second claimant asks for a reconsideration as she says she could not afford to pay the deposit at the time and she missed the deadline when she was able to do so. The deposit order was made at a hearing in May 2023.The amount ordered was £50. It was to be paid within 21 days of the date of the order, which was sent to the parties on 21 June 2023.[4]The claimant did not make any application when the deposit order was Case No: 2301698/2021 & 2302068/2021 11.6C Judgment – Reconsideration refused – claimant - rule 72 made to indicate that she would be in a position to pay the deposit at a later date. She did not make any application to vary the deposit order. She took no action until the judgement itself was issued some months later.[5]She has not provided sufficient explanation as to why she did not contact the tribunal until December. 03 January 2024 Employment Judge McLaren Case No: 2301698/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Adam Tihomirov Respondent: Cognithan Limited Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal, Croydon (in person) On: 17-18 April 2024 Before: Employment Judge Abbott, Ms T Bryant, Mr S Khan Representation Claimant: in person (using a Polish interpreter) Respondent: Miss A Marquarite Robinson, barrister