Mr M M Vellathur v Global Facility Management Ltd: 2406831/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2406831/2022

Between

Mr M M VellathurClaimant

Global Facility Management LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Phil Allen

Date 20 December 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 respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £6,743.55.

[3]The respondent was in breach of contract by failing to reimburse the claimant for mileage incurred. Therefore, the respondent is ordered to pay damages to the claimant in the sum of £180.00. Employment Judge Phil Allen Date: 20 December 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: 2406831/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M M Vellathur Respondent: Global Facility Management Ltd RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT The respondent’s application dated 23 February 2023 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 22 December 2022, is refused.

REASONS

[1]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (rule 70).

[2]Rule 71 provides that an application for reconsideration shall be presented in writing within 14 days of the date on which the written record was sent to the parties.

[3]Rules 86 and 90 address delivery to parties. Where a document is delivered to a party by post, unless the contrary is proved, it is taken as having been received on the day on which it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

[4]The Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton

[2016] EWCA Civ 714

has emphasised the importance of finality, which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily. In exercising the discretion, I must have regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the reconsideration, but also to the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation.

[5]Rule 72(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. Case No: 2406831/2022

[6]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, so far as practicable, saving expense. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication.

[7]The claim was served on the respondent using the registered office address for the respondent as recorded on Companies house. The respondent did not respond.

[8]In the absence of a response, a rule 21 Judgment was made on 20 December 2022 and it was sent to the parties on 22 or 23 December 2022. The covering letter for the Judgment was also addressed to the registered office address of the respondent. The delivery of that letter was successful.

[9]Mr Omo-Asagie’s witness statement, provided to support the reconsideration application, explains that he received the Judgment on 24 December 2022. He is a director of the respondent.

[10]The 14 days provided for by rule 71, in which a reconsideration application should be presented, expired on 6 January 2023.

[11]It appears from his witness statement that Mr Omo-Asagie decided to take independent legal advice only some time after 25 January 2023. Thereafter the respondent’s representative emailed the Tribunal on 27 January 2023 seeking copies of the relevant documents, submitted an application for reconsideration on 30 January 2023, and submitted a draft response form on 10 February 2023. I would observe that the draft response raises a potential defence to the claim, particularly in respect of the time when the claim was entered, albeit there also appears to be acknowledgement that the claimant was not paid some wages due (paragraph 14 of the detailed grounds of response acknowledges this; the reason referred to does not appear as pleaded to be a reason for a deduction to be lawfully authorised).

[12]I have also considered the respondent’s solicitor’s application dated 23 February 2023 and the claimant’s response to the application dated 11 March 2023. I note that the claimant objects to the application and the reasons why he does so.

[13]In error the Tribunal issued a letter confirming that the response had been accepted. That was an administrative error. I had at that time neither reconsidered my previous Judgment nor accepted the draft response. The Tribunal has already apologised for the error in the letter of 5 April 2023.

[14]As I have highlighted, there should, as far as possible, be finality in litigation. I must consider the interests of justice. Rule 71 provides a short timescale for applications to reconsider. A director of the respondent was in receipt of the Judgment in this claim for almost all of the relevant 14 days. He did not seek legal advice, nor did he successfully apply to reconsider the Judgment, until approximately three weeks after that time had expired. The application to reconsider was made over a month after the Judgment had been sent to the parties and over a month after it had been received by a director of the respondent. Case No: 2406831/2022

[15]I have decided that the application was not made in the time required and that time should not be extended (to the extent required for the application to reconsider to be accepted) in the circumstances. There is accordingly no reasonable prospect of the original decision being revoked and the application is refused.