Miss A Singleton v iPro Sport Corporation Ltd: 2401430/2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2401430/2017
Between
Miss A SingletonClaimantiPro Sport Corporation LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Tom RyanDate 11 April 2017
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The respondent not having presented a response the following judgment is made in favour of the claimant.[1]The complaints of breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages, and unpaid holiday pay are upheld.[2]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following sums: Breach of contract Unpaid expenses October 2016 364.04 November 2016 165.52 Car allowance 3 months at 240.00 720.00 Laptop cost 909.00 Telephone bills 3 months at 62.00 186.00 Notice pay 1 week at 615.39 615.39 2,959.95 Arrears of wages November 2016 2,666.67 Unpaid holiday pay 6 days at £123.08 738.48 £6,365.10[3]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant 2 weeks’ pay for failure to provided terms and conditions of employment in compliance with sections 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This sum is subject to the maximum provided by section 227(1) of £479 per week. £958.00 Case No. 2401430/2017[4]The respondent is further ordered to pay the claimant’s costs as reimbursement of fees paid to the tribunal. £160.00[5]For the avoidance of doubt the total sum payable under this judgment is £7,483.10 and shall be paid by the respondent to the tribunal on or before 26 April 2017. Employment Judge Tom Ryan 11 April 2017[1]The complaints of breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages, and unpaid holiday pay are upheld.[2]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following sums: Breach of contract Unpaid expenses October 2016 364.04 November 2016 165.52 Car allowance 3 months at 240.00 720.00 Laptop cost 909.00 Telephone bills 3 months at 62.00 186.00 Notice pay 1 week at 615.39 615.39 2,959.95 Arrears of wages November 2016 2,666.67 Unpaid holiday pay 6 days at £123.08 738.48 £6,365.10[3]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant 2 weeks’ pay for failure to provided terms and conditions of employment in compliance with sections 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This sum is subject to the maximum provided by section 227(1) of £479 per week. £958.00 Case No. 2401430/2017[4]The respondent is further ordered to pay the claimant’s costs as reimbursement of fees paid to the tribunal. £160.00[5]For the avoidance of doubt the total sum payable under this judgment is £7,483.10 and shall be paid by the respondent to the claimant on or before 26 April 2017. Employment Judge Tom Ryan 11 April 2017
REASONS
[1]Judgment in these proceedings was given in favour of the claimant under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 when the respondent, then named as iPro Sport Corporation Ltd, failed to present a response. Case No. 2401430/2017[2]Subsequently, an application was made for a reconsideration of the judgment on the ground that the respondent did not accept it was liable to the claimant. As part of that application it was stated on behalf of the respondent that the claimant worked for iPro Sport Distribution Ltd.[3]There was a delay in listing this hearing due to the failure of the respondent to pay the fee then prescribed for an application for reconsideration.[4]Before any further decision was made in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 the Supreme Court decided that it was unlawful for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to charge fees of this nature. HMCTS has undertaken to repay such fees. In these circumstances I shall draw to the attention of HMCTS that this is a case in which fees have been paid and are therefore to be refunded to the claimant. The details of the repayment scheme are a matter for HMCTS.[5]I therefore directed that this hearing be listed. The claimant attended but the respondent did not.[6]In those circumstances I did not consider it appropriate to vary the substance of the judgment on liability or remedy. There was no material information from the respondent upon which I could consider doing so.[7]I did consider it appropriate to raise with the claimant the possibility of amending the title of the respondent. She told me that she had not been given a contract of employment when she worked for the respondent but she had received payslips from iPro Sport Distribution Ltd whilst employed. Since that accorded with the respondent’s assertion the claimant agreed that the judgment should be given against that company.[8]As part of the original judgment I had ordered the respondent to reimburse the claimant’s tribunal fees. In my judgment it was in the interests of justice to revoke that part of the judgment. Arrangements are being put in place to enable claimants to apply to HMCTS for reimbursement of fees.[9]Finally, since I had varied the name of the respondent I considered it appropriate to set a revised date for payment of the judgment sum. Having regard to the passage of time I have ordered payment within seven days of the date of this hearing.[10]For the avoidance of doubt I confirm that the original judgment remains the judgment of the tribunal save for the variations recorded in this document. _____________________________ Employment Judge Date_________ 1 September 2017________ Case No. 2401430/2017[1]Judgment in these proceedings was given in favour of the claimant under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 when the respondent, then named as iPro Sport Corporation Ltd, failed to present a response.[2]Subsequently, an application was made for a reconsideration of the judgment on the ground that the respondent did not accept it was liable to the claimant. As part of that application it was stated on behalf of the respondent that the claimant worked for iPro Sport Distribution Ltd.[3]There was a delay in listing this hearing due to the failure of the respondent to pay the fee then prescribed for an application for reconsideration.[4]Before any further decision was made in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 the Supreme Court decided that it was unlawful for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to charge fees of this nature. HMCTS has undertaken to repay such fees. In these circumstances I shall draw to the attention of HMCTS that this is a case in which fees have been paid and are therefore to be refunded to the claimant. The details of the repayment scheme are a matter for HMCTS.[5]I therefore directed that this hearing be listed. The claimant attended but the respondent did not.[6]In those circumstances I did not consider it appropriate to vary the substance of the judgment on liability or remedy. There was no material information from the respondent upon which I could consider doing so.[7]I did consider it appropriate to raise with the claimant the possibility of amending the title of the respondent. She told me that she had not been given a contract of employment when she worked for the respondent but she had received payslips from iPro Sport Distribution Ltd whilst employed. Since that accorded with the respondent’s assertion the claimant agreed that the judgment should be given against that company.[8]As part of the original judgment I had ordered the respondent to reimburse the claimant’s tribunal fees. In my judgment it was in the interests of justice to revoke that part of the judgment. Arrangements are being put in place to enable claimants to apply to HMCTS for reimbursement of fees.[9]Finally, since I had varied the name of the respondent I considered it appropriate to set a revised date for payment of the judgment sum. Having regard to the passage of time I have ordered payment within seven days of the date of this hearing.[10]For the avoidance of doubt I confirm that the original judgment remains the judgment of the tribunal save for the variations recorded in this document. Case No. 2401430/2017