Mr J Smith v Millers Citax Ltd: 2410373/2019
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the sum of £105.20[2]The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in the sum of £53.52.[3]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £320, being accrued but untaken holidays on the termination of employment.[4]The respondent is ordered to pay the above sums to the claimant within 14 days of the date of this judgment. Employment Judge Ross _____________________________ Date: 18 November 2019 Case No: 2410373/2019 4.17 Rule 21 judgment – universal template. September 2017[1]This guidance note should be read in conjunction with the booklet, ‘The Judgment’ which can be found on our website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-hearings-judgment-guide-t426 If you do not have access to the internet, paper copies can be obtained by telephoning the tribunal office dealing with the claim.[2]The Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 provides for interest to be paid on employment tribunal awards (excluding sums representing costs or expenses) if they remain wholly or partly unpaid more than 14 days after the date on which the Tribunal’s judgment is recorded as having been sent to the parties, which is known as “the relevant decision day”.[3]The date from which interest starts to accrue is the day immediately following the relevant decision day and is called “the calculation day”. The dates of both the relevant decision day and the calculation day that apply in your case are recorded on the Notice attached to the judgment. If you have received a judgment and subsequently request reasons (see ‘The Judgment’ booklet) the date of the relevant judgment day will remain unchanged.[4]“Interest” means simple interest accruing from day to day on such part of the sum of money awarded by the tribunal for the time being remaining unpaid. Interest does not accrue on deductions such as Tax and/or National Insurance Contributions that are to be paid to the appropriate authorities. Neither does interest accrue on any sums which the Secretary of State has claimed in a recoupment notice (see ‘The Judgment’ booklet).[5]Where the sum awarded is varied upon a review of the judgment by the Employment Tribunal or upon appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal or a higher appellate court, then interest will accrue in the same way (from "the calculation day"), but on the award as varied by the higher court and not on the sum originally awarded by the Tribunal.[6]‘The Judgment’ booklet explains how employment tribunal awards are enforced. The interest element of an award is enforced in the same way. Case No. 2410373/19 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Smith Respondent: Millers Citax Ltd Heard at: Manchester (by CVP) On: 29 September 2020 Before: Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Apperly, AccountantREASONS
[1]The claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal in July 2019. A copy of the claim was sent to the respondent at their correct address including full postcode by letter of 15 August 2019. Before that on 13 August 2019 ACAS had contacted the respondent. It had provided an early conciliation certificate.[2]The case was listed for hearing at the same time as the letter informing the respondent of the claim form was sent. The hearing was fixed for 19 October 2019.[3]On 9 October 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant and the respondent explaining that the respondent had failed to file a response and a judgment would now be issued but further information was required from the claimant to enable the Tribunal to do this. Case No. 2410373/19 2[4]On 11 October 2019 Mr Abram of the respondent contacted the Tribunal asking for the remedy hearing to be postponed. He did not file a response.[5]It was not until 16 December 2019 that the respondent filed a response.[6]At the reconsideration hearing today Mr Apperly for the respondent said the basis on which the respondent was applying for the Rule 21 judgment to be set aside and that the respondent be permitted to file a response out of time was because the respondent had been unaware of these proceedings and so it was not in the interests of justice to allow the Rule 21 judgment to stand.[7]The claimant objected. He said he had complied with all the relevant procedures and the matter had dragged on for a long time.[8]The power to reconsider a judgment is found at Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations Schedule 1. This states, “a Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect the request from an Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. On reconsideration the decision “the original decision may be confirmed, varied or revoked”. If it is revoked it may be taken again. I remind myself that the grounds of success for reconsideration application are that the consideration is necessary in the “interests of justice”. It is common in litigation that a party who is unsuccessful considers it is in the interests of justice to have a decision reconsidered. I remind myself that the interests of justice provision allows a discretion which must be exercised judicially and it means having 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 also to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation (Outasight -v- Brown UK EAT 053/14. I remind myself that in that case it was held that cases which determined the meaning of “interests of justice” under the old 2013 Employment Tribunal rules of procedure remain relevant. I base this on which reconsideration is sought in this case is that the respondent did not comply with the time limit for service of proceedings because they were unaware of the claim.[9]I am not satisfied that this is correct. The Tribunal served the claim form on the respondent at the correct address with the correct postcode and accordingly the proceedings are deemed to have been served. I also note that Mr Abram from the respondent accepted in an email to the Tribunal in October that he was aware of the proceedings when contacted by ACAS in August 2019.[10]I find the respondent was also aware that the Tribunal were minded to order a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent even if they had not received the original proceedings had certainly received the letter dated 9 October 2019 informing them of that fact because the respondent contacted the Tribunal on 11 October 2019.[11]Therefore, despite being aware of the proceedings at the latest by 9 October 2019, the respondent did not file a response until 16 December 2019. There is no clear explanation for that delay. Case No. 2410373/19 3[12]The sums involved are relatively small, rules in the Employment Tribunal are normally interpreted strictly given the interests in finality of litigation.[13]For these reasons I find it is not in the interests of justice to set aside the Rule 21 judgment and allow the respondent to serve a response out of time and accordingly the original judgment stands. Employment Judge Ross 9 October 2020