Mr H Noon v Kavanagh Motor Group Ltd: 2303644/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant was unfairly dismissed, pursuant to the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.103A.[2]There is a 25% chance that, had a fair procedure been followed, he would have been fairly dismissed.[3]The Respondent will pay the Claimant the sum of £2,946.62 (£3,928.82 x 25%) in compensation. _____________________________________ Employment Judge Cheetham QC ______________________________________ Date 4 December 2019 Case Number: 2303644/2018 Page 2 of 2 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case Number: 2303644/2018 Page 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr H Noon Respondent: Kavanagh Motor Group Ltd Before: Employment Judge Cheetham QCREASONS
[1]At a hearing on 26 November 2019, I gave judgment that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, but that there was a 25% chance that, had a fair procedure been followed, he would have been fairly dismissed. I ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the sum of £2,946.62. That was therefore the net sum after the gross amount of compensation (£3,928.82) was reduced by 25%. Reasons were given at the hearing and there was no request from either party for written reasons. The Judgment was promulgated on 4 December 2019.[2]On 4 March 2020, the Claimant emailed the Tribunal as follows: To whom it may concern, Re telephone to your office today I have concerns regarding your email the amount awarded is different to what the judge said at the hearing. The figure I was expecting is in brackets on your email not the bold figure. Case Number: 2303644/2018 Page 2 of 2[3]The reference to “the bold figure” was to £2,946.62, which was in bold in the Judgment. Unfortunately this email was not forwarded to me at the time and I only saw it for the first time on 11 June. I apologise to the Claimant for the delay in responding to his email.[4]I am treating the email as an application for reconsideration of the judgment. Although it was sent a considerable time after the 14 day deadline, the Tribunal has also been guilty of delays, so it seems reasonable for me to extend time for that application.[5]At the hearing, I heard all the evidence and reached my judgment. That judgment was in the Claimant’s favour, in that I found his dismissal to have been unfair. However, the conclusion that there was a 25% chance that he would have been dismissed fairly, had a fair procedure been followed, was consistent with the evidence that I heard, although it was a lower percentage than the Respondent was seeking.[6]In the circumstances, I see no reasonable prospect of varying the Judgment and the application for reconsideration is refused.