Mr Paul Emery v Mr Michael J Livermore T/a Alnwick Barbering Company: 2501438/2020 and 2501557/2020
JUDGMENT
The judgement of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:[1]The correct name of the Respondent is Michael John Livermore trading as Alnwick Barbering Company. The Employment Tribunal file is amended accordingly and service is deemed to have been effected.[2]The Respondent’s application to amend its response to make a counter-claim against the Claimant is out of time. As it was reasonably practicable for the counter-claim to have been submitted in time, the application is refused.[3]The Claimant’s claim for holiday pay is well founded and the parties agree that Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the sum of £340.00. This is a gross payment and the Claimant shall be liable to the Inland Revenue for any tax and national insurance payments thereon.[4]The Claimant’s claim for notice pay is well founded and the Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £340.00. This is a gross payment and the Claimant shall be liable to the Inland Revenue for any tax and national insurance payments thereon.[5]The Claimant’s claim for the unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to S.13 of the Employment Right Act 1996 is well founded and the Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £272.00. This is a gross payment and the Case Number: 2501438/2020 (V) 2501557/2020 2 Claimant shall be liable to the Inland Revenue for any tax and national insurance payments thereon.[6]Total award = £952.00[7]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply. EMPLOYMENT JUDGE ARULLENDRANREASONS
The application by the Respondent to reconsider the Judgment dated 30 September 2020 is refused because the Respondent is attempting to relitigate the same arguments presented at the hearing of 30 September 2020 and it is not in the interest of justice to admit evidence that would have been available to the Respondent at the original hearing had he prepared adequately for that hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, the application for reconsideration does not have any reasonable prospect of success as the Respondent’s arguments have no legal merit and were considered in full at the original hearing.