Mr J Farrugia v Ms M Hallmark: 2600713/2020
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The second respondent has failed to present a response to the claimant’s claim, despite having been given extra time to do so, and given time to prove that she did post a response to the Tribunal in October 2020 as she has alleged she did. Rule 21 therefore applies and a determination can properly be made of the claim on the basis of the documentation the Tribunal has, given that no defence has been put forward by the second respondent. The second respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £31,288.39, being the amount of those deductions. RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT Upon reconsideration, the judgment against the second respondent in the claimant’s favour signed on 18 November 2020, stating that “The second respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £31,288.39, being the amount of those deductions” is varied, such that instead of having to pay that sum, the second respondent must pay the claimant the gross sum of £54,707.41REASONS
[1]I issued a judgment in November 2020 under rule 21. The claimant applied to have the judgment corrected. I took the view that reconsideration rather than correction was the correct route.[2]I refer to an order I made in March this year, set out in an emailed letter from the Tribunal of 17 March 2021. I asked the claimant to provide some additional information, and this was finally provided in an email of 6 July 2021. (I apologise for the delay in dealing with that email; it has only just been referred to me). I also expressed an intention to reconsider my judgment. I gave the respondents until 10 am on 22 March 2021 to respond and raise any objections to, or otherwise comment on, the claimant’s application. To the best of my knowledge, they have not done so. In particular, I am not aware of any reasoned objections to it from the second respondent, nor any reconsideration application or application for an extension of time for presenting a response, nor any appeal, from her. In addition, no one has objected to my proposal to deal with this matter on paper, without a hearing.[3]In all the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice to vary the judgment. The previous judgment sum was for the net amount owing and that the judgment should have been for the gross amount. The correct gross amount - £54,707.41 – has been calculated with the assistance of the claimant’s accountants and is set out in a spreadsheet attached to the claimant’s solicitors’ email of 6 July 2021, which was copied to the respondents. 1 of 2 Case No: 2600713/2020 . 14 September 2021 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE CAMP