Miss D Christian v Cooltemple Construction Services Ltd: 2402945/2017

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2402945/2017

Between

Miss D ChristianClaimant

Cooltemple Construction Services LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Franey

In person for claimant

Not represented for respondent

Date 21 July 2017

JUDGMENT

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21

[1]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £200.00 representing accrued but untaken annual leave.

[2]The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010 succeeds. The dismissal of the claimant was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant compensation calculated as follows: Injury to feelings £1,000.00 Interest thereon £ 31.78 Loss of earnings £1,920.00 Interest thereon £ 30.72 Total £2,982.50

[3]The respondent is ordered to pay costs to the claimant under Rule 75(1)(b) in the sum of £250.00 in respect of the issue fee paid by the claimant in these proceedings.

REASONS

[1]The claim form was served on the respondent by letter of 5 June 2017, together with notice of a Preliminary Hearing for case management purposes on 21 July 2017.

[2]The response form was due by 3 July 2017. No response form was received.

[3]On 7 July 2017 the claim form was sent to the respondent at its registered office. The Tribunal’s letter said that any response would now be out of time so an application for an extension of time would be required.

[4]No response form or application for an extension of time had been received before the Preliminary Hearing on 21 July 2017. The claimant attended in person. The respondent did not.

[5]In the absence of any response form defending the proceedings, judgment under rule 21 was appropriate. I was satisfied that the amounts sought by the claimant on the claim from were properly claimable. I awarded her the amounts sought.

[6]The award for injury to feelings took account of the effect of inflation and of the 10% uplift pursuant to De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd

[2017] EWCA Civ 879

[7]Interest on the award for pregnancy discrimination was calculated in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, using the Special Investment Account rate of 8% per annum.

[8]As the respondent had not defended the proceedings I ordered that it should reimburse the claimant her issue fee. Employment Judge Franey 21 July 2017 24 July 2017 NOTICE THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (INTEREST) ORDER 1990 Tribunal case number: 2402945/2017 Name of case: Miss D Christian v Cooltemple Construction Services Ltd The Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 provides that sums of money payable as a result of a judgment of an Employment Tribunal (excluding sums representing costs or expenses), shall carry interest where the full amount is not paid within 14 days after the day that the document containing the tribunal’s written judgment is recorded as having been sent to parties. That day is known as “the relevant decision day”. The date from which interest starts to accrue is called “the calculation day” and is the day immediately following the relevant decision day. The rate of interest payable is that specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 on the relevant decision day. This is known as "the stipulated rate of interest" and the rate applicable in your case is set out below. The following information in respect of this case is provided by the Secretary of the Tribunals in accordance with the requirements of Article 12 of the Order:- "the relevant decision day" is: 24 July 2017 "the calculation day" is: 25 July 2017 "the stipulated rate of interest" is: 8% For the Employment Tribunal Office

[1]I have considered the respondent's application for reconsideration of the rule 21 judgment. That application is contained in emails of 1 and 3 August 2017 enclosing the proposed response form on which the respondent would seek to rely if the judgment were to be revoked.

[2]Implicitly the respondent seeks not only revocation of the rule 21 judgment but also an extension of time to 1 August 2017 for the filing of the response form. A revocation without a corresponding extension of time would be pointless as the claim would remain undefended and a fresh rule 21 judgment would inevitably ensue.

[3]Rule 72(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure empowers me to refuse the application for reconsideration if I consider that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (rule 70).

[4]In common with all powers under the 2013 Rules, preliminary consideration under rule 72(1) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in rule 2, namely to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, and avoiding delay. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication.

[5]The response form was originally required by 3 July 2017. No response had been received by the time of the hearing on 21 July 2017. The two emails of 1 and 3 August 2017 contained no information as to why the response form had not been lodged within time. By letter of 14 August 2017 I allowed the Case No: 2402945/2017 respondent until 6 September 2017 to explain why the response was filed late and why it would be in the interests of justice to revoke the judgment and allow the response to be accepted out of time.

[6]No reply was received by that time. On 11 September 2017, however, the Tribunal received a letter from the respondent explaining that the reason for delay was “holidays and moving offices”.

[7]I did not consider that those four words alone provided sufficient grounds for revocation of the judgment and an extension of time for the response form. By letter of 3 October 2017 I allowed the respondent until 13 October 2017 to provide full details of the sequence of events leading to the response form being filed late. I explained in the letter that this was a final opportunity to demonstrate a compelling reason to grant an extension of time. No reply has been received.

[9]Having considered all the information provided by the respondent I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. No grounds upon which it would be in the interests of justice to revoke the judgment have been identified, save that the respondent now seeks to defend the claim when it failed to do so at the material time. No proper explanation for that failure has been provided. The application for reconsideration is refused.