Mr R Carman v The Concrete and Corrosion Consultancy Practice Ltd: 2303012/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages is not well-founded and is dismissed.REASONS
[2]Following the open preliminary hearing on 15 November 2024 and the subsequent Case Management Orders, the respondent has provided the outstanding sick leave and annual leave records justifying the way the claimant was paid and the claimant has not responded to show otherwise.[3]The respondent is happy for this matter to be considered on the papers and the claimant has not objected to that approach.[4]It appears from the respondent’s documentation that there is no outstanding pay due to the claimant. The claimant has not responded to suggest otherwise or complied with the orders.[1]The respondent’s application for costs dated 21 January 2025 is refused.[2]The respondent’s application was first referred to me on 22 May 2025, following the respondent’s request for an update on 21 May 2025. The respondent consented to the decision being made on the papers and the claimant has not responded. I have therefore made a decision on the papers.[3]I accept I do have discretion to award costs in this case and potentially must consider it given the claimant’s repeated failure to respond to orders and the points the respondent raises about the nature of his claim (rule 74).[4]Nevertheless I decline to do so in this case for the following reasons. The claimant is representing himself and said he “was new to this”. Although I found it would have been better for him to update his email details with the tribunal and the respondent, I accepted he had not received the correspondence prior to the hearing. He did attend following the clerk’s contact on the day and we were able to make progress.[5]I have noted that at the hearing he made repeated references to struggling over that period and not being in a good place.[6]I considered his misunderstanding about how overtime was calculated, though incorrect, was genuine.[7]He did not reply to the respondent’s further information about sick pay to say whether or not he accepted it, but that wasted my time in having to make a decision on the papers, not the respondent’s time as there was nothing further for 1 of 2 Case Number: 2303012/2024 the respondent to do at that point. The respondent benefitted from a decision on the papers (rather than at a further hearing) at that point.[8]The respondent has had a decision in their favour on the papers shortly after the first hearing in a simple wages claim. I do not consider this is a matter where a costs award would be appropriate or that it is proportionate to take up more of the tribunal’s time on this matter.[9]I also note that I have little detail of the amount sought by the respondent, or whether it is a costs order or preparation time order that is sought. I also query how much preparation time was proportionate to defend what was a simple wages claim that the respondent was confident in defending.[10]I can have regard to the claimant’s ability to pay in deciding whether to make an order. I have little detail about this save that the claimant only worked a brief time for the respondent and earned roughly £3000 net. There is reference to his working on a self-employed basis since then, but as said above he has also made reference to struggling over the relevant period, so I cannot assume his earnings have continued at that kind of level.[11]It would not be proportionate to spend any more tribunal time on this matter. Whilst the claimant might be able to pay a nominal award I do not have sufficient evidence to find he has the ability to pay anything higher.[12]For all of the above reasons the application is refused.