Mr A Bigland v Miomni Gaming Ltd: 2305317/2021
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 29 October 2021. 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 £5750 gross.[3]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent must pay damages to the claimant of £1706.30.[4]The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £3264.[5]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and must pay the claimant £1692.30.[6]The respondent must pay the claimant £12,412.60 in total.[7]Where gross sums are indicated, the respondent can deduct any tax or NI due.[8]The claim for costs and fines is refused.REASONS
[1]On 8 August 2022 I considered whether to issue a Judgment in favour of the claimant as no response had been entered by the respondent to his claim. I was aware that there had already been delays in processing this matter and wished to ensure that it was now dealt with promptly. I took into account the detailed information quantifying his claims provided by the claimant in his email dated 12 May 2022. I accepted and adopted the claimant’s information in respect of each of his heads of claim. Although a previous Judge had asked for copies of two payslips, these did not appear on the file and I took the view that I did not need them in order to find in the claimant’s favour.[2]I also considered the claimant’s applications for interest, costs and for fines to be imposed on the respondent.[3]The Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to fine the respondent.[4]The Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to award interest on the heads of claim brought by the claimant. Case No: 2305317/2021[5]As to costs, I did not consider that the threshold required at rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 to make an award of costs in the claimant’s favour had been met. Simple failure by the respondent to pay the sums due and to fail to enter a response is not in my view sufficient.[6]Accordingly I conclude that there is there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and the application for a reconsideration is refused.