Miss O Harriette v Love Language Ltd: 3202909/2019
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The Respondent has failed to present a response to the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant’s specified claim for £677.10 in respect of 2 weeks’ notice succeeds.[2]The Respondent is therefore ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £677.10.REASONS
[1]The matter was listed before me for a telephone preliminary hearing to consider the management of the Claimant’s claims for payments due to her in respect of her 4 months work with the Respondent as a Finance Administrator.[2]In her ET1 the Claimant provided a calculation of what the Respondent owed her. She stated that this was £677.10 which was 2 weeks full pay as ‘agreed notice’. However, she also states that claims that she “would like to be compensated ‘one month’s pay in lieu of notice period”. Case Number: 3202909/2019 A[3]The Claimant also ticked the boxes for holiday pay and other payments. No specifics of these claims were provided.[4]The Respondent has not submitted an ET3 in respect of the Claimant’s claims.[5]Neither party attended the telephone preliminary hearing and no explanation was provided as to why they did not attend.[6]In these circumstances I considered that it was in accordance with the overriding objective and dealing with the case fairly and justly, proportionate to the complexity, avoiding delay and saving expense (including saving Tribunal resources) to issue a default judgment for the Claimant for the sum of £677.10.[1]The Respondent’s application dated 13th of May 2020 for reconsideration of the judgment is refused.[2]The default judgment was sent to the parties on 27 April 2020 and the application for reconsideration was made outside the 14 days required by rule 71 of the 2013 Employment Tribunal rules. The Respondent’s asserted that due to the COVID - 19 lockdown it was only able to receive the letter regarding the default judgement on 12 May 2020. However, this in the context of the Respondent failing to present an ET3 to the claim at all.[3]The Respondent had until 6 January 2020 to present a response to the claim, which was addressed at the Claimant’s place of work. All correspondence, including the judgment were addressed to that location. Whilst the Respondent’s registered office is at a different location there was no explanation as to why correspondence addressed to the place of work would not have been received.[4]On the information provided do not conclude that there is any reasonable prospect of the default judgement being revoked. Even now the Respondent has not presented an ET3 to the claim. It is not considered to be in accordance with the overriding objective of dealing with the case fairly and justly including ensuring the cases dealt with in a way that is proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, avoiding delay and saving expense, including tribunal time for the default judgment to be revoked. Case Number: 3202909/2019[5]In these circumstances the Respondent’s application for a reconsideration of the default judgement is refused.