Miss C Vecci v J Trinick: 3300077/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal on 12/01/2025. 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 in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £475 gross.[3]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent must pay damages to the claimant of £950.[4]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and must pay the claimant £166.25.[5]The respondent has failed to pay a petrol reimbursement and must pay the claimant £81.[6]The respondent must pay the claimant £1672.25 in total.[7]The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed on the basis that she does not have sufficient length of service to claim unfair dismissal and it does not appear that any exception to that rule applies in her case. Approved byREASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[1]On 12 January 2025 the claimant submitted an employment tribunal claim against the respondent. This was sent to the respondent later in January 2025 and there does not seem to any suggestion that it was not received by the respondent in good time for her to submit her response, which was due by 21 February 2025.[2]The respondent did submit a response, which was received by the tribunal on 28 February 2025. By a letter dated 28 April 2025 EJ George rejected the response on the basis that it was received out of time and no application for an extension of time for submission of the response had been made. The file was subsequently referred for consideration of a rule 22 judgment. I prepared such a judgment on 29 July 2025 and it was sent to the parties on 13 August 2025.[3]On 18 August 2025 the respondent wrote to request a reconsideration of the judgment. She cited substantial personal difficulties that she had in 2023 and 2024 (which seemed at least to some extent to be ongoing) and concluded “mentally and emotionally I am drained from all legal proceedings and have extreme anxiety when it comes to paperwork. So I implore you please to reconsider extension of time to review my response and reconsider your judgment.” That application was referred to me on 8 October 2025.[4]The substantial problem here is not about the underlying merits of any claim or response, but with the fact that the respondent submitted her response late, with no application for an extension of time, and then took Case Number: 3300077/2025 no steps to remedy this problem in the period from the end of April until the rule 22 decision was sent in mid-August 2025. What the respondent is now, in effect, seeking, is the extension of time that should have been sought in February 2025 and could have been sought by her at any point before the judgment was issued in August 2025.[5]There is, of course, no time limit on applying for such an extension of time, but in considering whether there is any reasonable prospect of the judgment being reconsidered I must take account of the fact that the claimant took no action to remedy the problem for many months. The claimant is entitled to expect finality in litigation, and for the respondent, despite her difficulties, to act with reasonable promptness to correct any problems. She has not done so and I consider that in those circumstances there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. Approved by