Mrs H Mahajuodeen v Mills Family Ltd: 2305125/2019
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 No response having been entered by the respondent, the claims of unfair dismissal and detriment succeed. The hearing on 20 May 2020 is converted to an in-person remedy hearing to be heard at London South ET, Montague Court, 101 London Rd, West Croydon, CR0 2RF. It remains listed at 2 pm. The respondent will only be permitted to participate in that hearing to the extent allowed by the Judge dealing with the hearing. The claimant shall bring 3 copies of the evidence she relies upon in support of her claims for compensation. JUDGMENT Rule 70 the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013[1]The rule 21 Judgment dated 11 February 2020 has been reconsidered on the application of the respondent and revoked.[2]Time for filing the response is extended to 12 March 2020.[3]The remedy hearing on 20 May 2020 is converted to a preliminary case management hearing to be heard by telephone.REASONS
[1]The claim form in this matter was properly served on the respondent and a response was due on or before 30 December 2019.[2]On 24 December 2019 consultants acting for the respondent requested an extension of time to present that response which was granted to expire on 13 January 2020.[3]No response was received and on 11 February 2020 I prepared, signed and dated a rule 21 Judgment and sent it to the administration team to be sent to the parties which was done on 26 March 2020.[4]In the meantime those acting for the respondent wrote to the tribunal on 12 March 2020 making a further application for an extension of time to submit the response. They explained that the previous extended deadline had been missed because of an administrative oversight. A proposed response was attached to that application.[5]I considered that application on 17 March but concluded, and informed the parties, that the rule 21 Judgment remained effective notwithstanding that at that point it had not been sent to the parties and I arranged for that to be done urgently. I advised the respondent that if they wish to defend the matter they must apply for a reconsideration of that judgement.[6]A reconsideration application was then made on 6 April 2020. This application was copied to the claimant from whom no comments have been received.[7]For the reasons set out in the respondent’s application, I conclude that it is in the interests of justice and in accordance with the overriding objective to grant the respondent’s application.[8]I have extended time to allow the response filed to be accepted and the remedy hearing will be converted back to a telephone preliminary case management hearing.[9]Mr Singh says that this explanation is neither full nor acceptable (he does not say it is dishonest). He rightly points out that the detailed explanation was only given once I expressly asked for it today. He has also pointed to the authorities that - in the context of compliance or otherwise with the deadline for filing appeals in the EAT - say that oversight in the passing of a time limit does not excuse delay. (He also pointed to authorities that state it is inappropriate for the Tribunal to investigate the correctness or otherwise of a representative’s actions but I note that that was in respect of the handling of a matter during a hearing rather than at a very preliminary stage such as this.)[10]Mr Singh made a strong case but on balance I do consider that the interests of justice require the rule 21 Judgment dated 11 February 2020 to once again be revoked. I acknowledge the prejudice to the claimant. She loses the benefit of that Judgment and it is right that she has done absolutely nothing wrong. The error here was all on the respondent’s part. However, by revoking the Judgment she does not suffer irreparable prejudice - she is put back in the position that she must have expected i.e. having the opportunity to present her case to a full Tribunal in due course. Set against that is the prejudice to the respondent of not having the opportunity to present their defence to serious allegations as well as a potentially significant financial finding against them as well as potential reputational damage.[11]I agree with Mr Singh and acknowledge that rules are there for a reason, the importance of finality of litigation and that the respondent’s representative, a professional organisation, has been slow to offer up the details of their administrative oversight. The details that have been given do not show them in a good light. However, I remain of the view that the interests of justice would not be properly served by the respondent not being given the opportunity to present its case in a matter which is still at the very early stages of its Tribunal life.[12]There is however a question of the additional costs that the claimant has undoubtedly been put to by the respondent’s representative’s failings. Mr Singh indicated that the appropriate application will be made at the next hearing.