Mr A Foster v MDH Services Group Ltd: 2403928/2022
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]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, in accordance with rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The appropriate remedy will be determined at a hearing at a later date.[3]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent is ordered to pay damages to the claimant in the gross sum of £3,105. (£915.00 x 4 weeks = £3,660.00; 3 x £185 = £555.00; £3,660.00 - £555.00 = £3,105.00).[4]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £549.00. Employment Judge Phil Allen Date: 8 December 2022 Case No: 2403928/2022[1]There is more information about Tribunal judgments here, which you should read with this guidance note: www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-hearings-judgment-guide-t426 If you do not have access to the internet, you can ask for a paper copy by telephoning the Tribunal office dealing with the claim.[2]The payment of interest on Employment Tribunal awards is governed by The Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. Interest is payable on Employment Tribunal awards if they remain wholly or partly unpaid more than 14 days after the relevant decision day. Sums in the award that represent costs or expenses are excluded. Interest starts to accrue from the day immediately after the relevant decision day, which is called the calculation day.[3]The date of the relevant decision day in your case is set out in the Notice. If the judgment is paid in full by that date, no interest will be payable. If the judgment is not paid in full by that date, interest will start to accrue from the next day.[4]Requesting written reasons after you have received a written judgment does not change the date of the relevant decision day.[5]Interest will be calculated as simple interest accruing from day to day on any part of the sum of money awarded by the Tribunal that remains unpaid.[6]If the person paying the Tribunal award is required to pay part of it to a public authority by way of tax or National Insurance, no interest is payable on that part.[7]If the Secretary of State has claimed any part of the sum awarded by the Tribunal in a recoupment notice, no interest is payable on that part.[8]If the sum awarded is varied, either because the Tribunal reconsiders its own judgment, or following an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal or a higher court, interest will still be payable from the calculation day but it will be payable on the new sum not the sum originally awarded.[9]The online information explains how Employment Tribunal awards are enforced. The interest element of an award is enforced in the same way. Case No:2403928/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Foster Respondent: MDH Services Group Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)[1]The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made on the claim in accordance with Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment in the gross sum of £3,264. Employment Judge Phil Allen 18 October 2024[1]The time for presentation of a response having elapsed and no response being received from the respondent, and,[2]The claimant having obtained the permission of the Business and Property Court of the High Court of Justice to continue these proceedings, it is the further judgment of the Tribunal that the claimant’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed is well founded, and it makes the following award:[1]The claimant is entitled to a compensatory award in the sum of £5,079.85, which sum the respondent is ordered to pay him.[2]The claimant has no further entitlement to compensation, having been awarded a redundancy payment under a previous judgment of the Tribunal. The Recoupment Regulations do not apply.REASONS
[1]By a claim form presented on 27 May 2022 the claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, for a redundancy payment and other payments against the respondent , by whom he was employed from 15 January 2018 until 24 February 2022.[2]The respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 30 November 2022. The effect of that was to prevent the claims proceeding without the permission of the High Court, with the result that these claims were stayed. Solicitors acting for the claimant made an application to the High Court for such permission , which was granted on 1 October 2024, following which the stay was lifted. Case No: 2403928/2022[3]A rule 21 (as it was then) judgment was issued on 18 October 2024, sent to the parties on 24 October 2024, in which the claimant was awarded a redundancy payment payment of £3,264.00. The claimant’s other claims appear to have been resolved through the RPS.[4]As, however, the claimant also claimed unfair dismissal, the Tribunal needed to hold a hearing to determine what compensatory award the claimant would be entitled to. To that end the Tribunal listed a remedy hearing to determine the amount of the compensatory award.[5]The claimant made a witness statement, dated 10 January 2025, and submitted a Schedule of Loss. He was, however, unwell and unable to attend a hearing. The Tribunal, however, was asked to determine remedy on the papers, if possible, and has done so.[6]Having considered the claimant’s witness statement, and the schedule of loss, the Tribunal makes the following findings.[7]The claimant’s pre-dismissal gross weekly pay was £915, net £667. He immediately found alternative employment, however, with Aptus Utilities , but did not start until a week later, on 1 March 2022.[8]Whilst the schedule of loss seeks £915 by way of lost earnings for this period, it overlooks the fact that this is the gross, and not the net, figure. The appropriate figure, therefore is £667.00 for this week of lost earnings.[9]Thereafter the claimant sustained partial loss, in that his pay in the new employment was some £113.15 (net) less than his pre-dismissal earnings. He therefore claims this partial loss for the period of 39 weeks from 1 March 2022 to 30 November 2022, the date when the respondent went into Liquidation and his employment would, he accepts, have ended in any event.[10]The Tribunal accepts that the claimant is entitled to be compensated for this period of partial loss of earnings, in the total sum, as per the schedule of loss , of £4,412.85.[11]Finally, the claimant seeks an award of loss of statutory rights. This is a conventional award which is often made in cases of unfair dismissal. The claimant has sought two weeks pay (applying the statutory cap) for this head of loss.[12]This claim, however, ignores the fact , which the claimant acknowledges in the other aspects of his claims, that his employment would soon have come to an end in any event. In such circumstances, no award for loss of statutory rights should be made (see Hope v Jordan Engineering Ltd UKEAT/0545/07, [2008] All ER (D) 370 (Jun) ).[13]In these circumstances, therefore, the Tribunal makes no award for loss of statutory rights.[14]The Tribunal’s calculation of the compensatory award is accordingly: Case No: 2403928/2022 Initial loss of earnings: 1 week’s net pay @ £667.00 £667.00 13 weeks of partial loss @ £113.15 £4,412.85 Total: £5,079.85[15]As the claimant found alternative work , he did not receive any state benefits, so the Recoupment Regulations do not apply.