Mr S Price v Board Game Museum and Cafe: 2306437/2023
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 23 November 2023. 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 £1,269.69 gross.[3]The respondent has failed to pay to the claimant compensation for his accrued but untaken holiday on the termination of his employment and must pay the claimant £932.59 gross.[4]The respondent must pay the claimant £2,202.28 gross in total.[5]The claimant must account to HMRC for any sums owed by him in respect of any payment received by him pursuant to this judgement.[1]The Respondent’s application for reconsideration of the judgment given in this matter on 12 July 2024 is refused, and the decision in that judgment is confirmed. BACKGROUND[2]The Claimant’s Claim Form was filed on 23 November 2023. The Claimant claimed that: a) The Respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages in the amount of £1,269.69 gross; and b) The Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant compensation for his accrued but untaken holiday on the termination of his employment in the amount of £932.59 gross.[3]The Claim Form identified the Respondent’s address as 25 Courthouse Street, Hastings, East Sussex, TN34 3AU, and Notice of Claim (with a copy of the Claim Form) was served on that address. The Notice of Claim informed the Respondent that, if it wished to defend the claim, it must complete the response form and submit it to the Employment Tribunal by 18 April 2024, and if it did not, judgment may be issued against it. The Respondent failed to present a Response.[5]The Tribunal issued judgment in default under what was then Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (the 2013 ET Rules) on 12 July 2024. 1 of 4[6]On 19 September 2024, the Respondent emailed etpenalties@businessandtrade.gov.uk, stating that: “We have just been handed a letter from a german tourist who is stating in 25 courthouse street which is an uninhabited Airbnb. He said he found it on top of the fridge and handed it to be as he asked if this was for me. What is this letter? Who is Samuel price? Why have you delivered a letter to the wrong address? The address here is 25a Courthouse Street as per google, website, etc… I am very confused. Is this a scam? I have various disabilities such as autism, dyslexia and visual impairments so this sort of thing is very distressing and causes me depression to which I am on medication for anyway due to neurodivergence.”[7]On 20 September 2024, the ET Financial Penalties Team, which is not part of the Employment Tribunal, provided the Respondent with the London South Employment Tribunal’s postal and email addresses, and telephone number.[8]On the same day the Respondent wrote to the Tribunal in similar terms.[9]On 11 December 2024, Lee Surridge of the Respondent emailed the Tribunal again, chasing a reply. A clerk of the Tribunal replied on the same day, providing the Respondent with copies of the Claim Form, ACAS certificate and judgment, and noting that “If you wish to request a reconsideration of this Judgment please email us asking for this as soon as possible.” APPLICATIONS[10]On 11 December 2024 the Respondent applied, under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (the 2024 ET Rules), for reconsideration of my decision on 12 July 2024 to issue default judgment against it under what was then Rule 21 of the 2013 ET Rules.[11]The Respondent’s reasons for applying for reconsideration of that decision are that: a) It says it does not know the Claimant; and b) It says it had not received the Notice of Claim.[12]The Tribunal wrote to the Respondent on 23 December 2024, granting an extension of time for reconsideration of the judgment made, noting that, if the Claimant thought the judgment should not be reconsidered, he should write to the Tribunal giving his reasons by 8 January 2025.[13]The Claimant wrote to the Tribunal on 8 January 2025, informing the Tribunal that he had received payment in full and that he considers the matter to be closed, i.e., that no reconsideration is necessary. 2 of 4 RULES[14]Rule 72 deals with the process the tribunal must follow regarding an application made under Rule 71: “Process (1) An Employment Judge shall consider any application made under rule 71. If the Judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked… the application shall be refused and the Tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal…”REASONS
15. Before issuing judgment on 12 July 2024, the Tribunal checked on Companies House, and a company with a very similar name to the respondent named by the Claimant, being “Board Game Museum Ltd”, was registered with Companies House, and had the identical registered address to that provided by the Claimant for the Respondent (25 Courthouse Street, Hastings, East Sussex, England, TN34 3AU). 16. Indeed, the company with that name is still registered with that address on Companies House at the date of this judgment on reconsideration, and the sole statutory director of that company is Gary Lee Surridge, the person who purportedly emailed the Employment Tribunal to say that the Notice of Claim had not been received and the postal address used by the Tribunal was incorrect. 17. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Notice of Claim was validly served, as was all subsequent correspondence to the 25 Courthouse Street address provided by the Claimant – this is the same address which matches the registered address for the Respondent with Companies House. 18. Moreover, the Claimant’s response to the reconsideration application is that the judgment issued has been satisfied, and so it appears that there is no longer an outstanding dispute between the parties, and therefore there is no need for reconsideration. 19. The Tribunal therefore considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked for two reasons: a) The evidence indicates that the Notice of Claim was validly served; and b) There appears to be no outstanding dispute between the parties. 20. The Respondent should note that the Employment Tribunal has no role in the enforcement of its judgments. 3 of 4 DECISION 21. For the reasons set out above, the Respondent’s application for reconsideration fails and that decision is confirmed.