Mrs M Ojeikere v Paystream My Max Ltd: 3200054/2025
JUDGMENT
The Claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment in respect of her dismissal of 12 September 2024. The Respondent must pay to the Claimant £2,468.14 (as calculated in the appendix hereto).REASONS
[1]First, I apologise to the Claimant on behalf of the Tribunal administration at the time it has taken to deal with her timely reconsideration application. It was only brought to my attention on 8 October 2025.[2]I have decided there is no reasonable prospect of the reconsideration application being successful for the following reasons. Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024[3]Under Rule 70 I must first consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. If not then I must refuse it.[4]There is not an unlimited power to reconsider: it must be in the interests of justice to do so. I consider the overriding objective including dealing with cases without delay, saving expense and proportionately to the issues. There should be finality in litigation – the reconsideration application is not merely the chance to have a second go at the claim. This application[5]The Claimant argues that notice pay ought to be added to the Redundancy Pay calculation. This is to confuse two very separate legal claims.[6]The first is the right to a redundancy payment which is a statutory right from section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The calculation of a redundancy payment is determined by the same statute, section 162 and this depends on length of service and age. People who have not been paid a redundancy payment can make a claim to the Tribunal for one, as the claimant did in this case.[7]The right to notice pay is an entirely separate contractual (not statutory) right. Case Number: 3200054/2025[8]These separate rights are reflected in the claim form claimants must fill in. At section 8 of the claim form under ‘type of claim’ there are separate boxes for ‘I am claiming a redundancy payment’ which the claimant ticked. And I am owed notice pay, which the claimant did not tick. Her claim was only for a redundancy payment.[9]On 27 June 25 the Claimant sought to amend her claim including to add a claims that she was entitled to notice pay and was unfairly dismissed. REJ Burgher directed that this be considered at the hearing. At the hearing on 14 July 2025 I did not allow the Claimant to amend her claims. I gave oral reasons at the time but set them out here in writing here. 9.1. the claims sought to be added would have been out of time on 13 January 2025 when the original claim was presented; 9.2. while the Claimant was unwell, she was well enough to research matters and therefore to start the ACAS Early Conciliation process.[10]her friend has only just told her about unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, but this information would have been available to her on a simple internet search, there is sufficient information for example on the ACAS website itself. It was therefore reasonable practicable for the Claimant to present those claims in time.[11]While the time limit issue is an important factor it is not determinative.[12]I therefore considered most importantly the balance of convenience (or balance of prejudice) in other words who would be most prejudiced by my decision on the amendment on way or another. I considered the prejudice to the Respondent in having to meet two entirely new claims so late and the cost of preparing those claims which would require potentially other witnesses and the need for a postponement today was greater than the prejudice to the claimant who still had the original claim for her redundancy payment.[13]Taking the time limit factor together with the greater prejudice to the Respondent I refused the application to amend.[14]The Claimant has given no reasons that would mean it is in the interests of justice to reconsider my decision not to allow her to amend her claims. Notice is not part of the redundancy payment: she is mistaken about that. Therefore her reconsideration application is not allowed