Mrs E Bowles v Tempest Rentals (Stickney) Ltd: 2600128/2022
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the [Midlands East] Employment Tribunals on [19.1.22]. 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, or part of it, in accordance with rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £1,380 gross.[3]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent must pay damages to the claimant of £1,620 gross.[4]The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,645 gross.[5]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and must pay the claimant £2,268 gross. All further hearings are cancelled. Employment Judge Adkinson Date: 9 May 2022 Case No: 2600128/2022 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs E Bowles Respondent: Tempest Rentals (Stickney) Ltd Heard at: In Chambers On: 5 September 2022 Before: Employment Judge Broughton (Sitting Alone)REASONS
[1]On 9 May 2022 Employment Judge Adkinson issued a Judgment for both liability and remedy (“The Judgment”) made pursuant to Rule 21 on the grounds that the Respondent had failed to enter a response to the claim.[2]The claim was presented on 19 January 2022 and served at an address at 9 Cresswell Close, Spalding, Lincolnshire. No response was received and Employment Judge Adkinson determined the claim on the papers pursuant to Rule 21.[3]The Respondent contacted the Tribunal on 27 July 2022 complaining that the Respondent had only received papers pertaining to the claimant direct from the Claimant on 26 July 2022 and that the claim had been served on the wrong address. The Claimant provided her comments, which were in essence that she had included in the claim form the address for the Respondent which appears on the HMRC portal.[4]Representatives for the Respondent wrote on the 17 August 2022 clarifying that the Respondent was applying for the judgement to be set aside and the claim re-served.[5]Neither party sought a hearing to determine the application.[6]It is apparent from Companies House that the Respondent’s registered Case No: 2600128/2022 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 office had changed and that the claim had been served on the old registered office address.[7]As Employment Judge Adkinson was on leave and I therefore in his absence, determined the application.THE LAW
[8]The procedure and basis for applications for Reconsideration is provided for by Rules 70 to 73 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Under the provisions of Rule 70, a Judgment will only be reconsidered where it is ‘necessary in the interests of justice to do so’ and a Tribunal dealing with the question of Reconsideration must seek to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with cases ‘fairly and justly’.[9]A Tribunal should also be guided by the common law principles of natural justice and fairness when dealing with applications of this kind.[10]The wording ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ in Rule 70 allows Employment Tribunals a broad discretion to determine whether Reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate in the circumstances.[11]This discretion must be exercised having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the review or 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 (see Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, EAT).CONCLUSIONS
[12]The Judgment was issued because the Respondent did not enter a response. However, the Respondent’s position is that it never received the claim form and I am satisfied that the claim was served at an old registered office address. Accordingly, the Respondent did not receive the claim and was not in a position to respond to it. It is therefore in the interests of justice to revoke the Judgment and for the claim to be re- served.