Mr C Walker v Green Leaf Health Ltd (T/a Blossom Home Care Reading): 3300433/2024
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the South East Employment Tribunals on 10 January 2024. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. TheREASONS
[1]On 10 January 2024 the claimant submitted a claim against the respondent. He said that he was owed salary for the months of September, October and November 2023 and that this totaled £7,800. The address the claimant gave for the respondent was its registered office at 200 Brook Drive.[2]The claim was sent to the respondent by the tribunal on 29 January 2024, with instructions given for a response to be provided by 26 February 2024.[3]The claim form was returned to the tribunal through the post on the basis that the respondent had “gone away” – although 200 Brook Drive remained at that time the respondent’s registered office.[4]The claim was referred to me for consideration of a judgment under rule 21, which provides that: “(1) Where on the expiry of the time limit in rule 16 no response has been presented … paragraph (2) … shall apply. (2) An Employment Judge shall decide whether on the available material … a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it. To the extent that a determination can be made, the Judge shall issue a judgment accordingly”.[5]The relevant time limit had expired. No response had been presented. The claim form had been returned undelivered but as it had been properly addressed to the respondent’s registered office there was nothing more that could or should be done by way of attempting service on the respondent.[6]The claimant had clearly explained the amounts he said were due to him, and I considered that under rule 21(2) a determination could be made of the claim. I did so, preparing a judgment dated 20 March 2024 that was sent to the parties on 12 April 2024.[7]As previously this judgment was sent to 200 Brook Drive. This time the post was not returned but on 18 April 2024 the respondent sent an email asking for written reasons for the decision. That was referred to me on 25 June 2024 and at my request the full file was supplied to me by tribunal staff on 4 July 2024. I have accordingly prepared these written reasons for my judgment.[1]On 20 March 2024 I prepared a judgment under rule 21 on there being no response from the respondent to the claimant’s claim.[2]At the respondent’s request written reasons for this judgment were produced on 4 July 2024 and sent to the parties on 12 July 2024.[3]On 26 July 2024 the respondent made an application for reconsideration of that judgment. That application was copied to the claimant and made within 14 days of the written reasons being sent to the respondent so it meets the formal requirements for an application for reconsideration under rule 71.[4]The application for reconsideration was referred to me on 30 August 2024.[5]Any application for reconsideration is subject to initial consideration by the judge under rule 72(1). If the judge decides that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked the application is to be refused. I have decided that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and the remainder of these reasons explain why. Case No: 3300433/2024[6]The claimant’s claim is for pay in September, October and November 2023. It is clear from his claim form that this relates to “a new job role” with the respondent following an unsuccessful application for CQC registration.[7]As the reasons for the judgment make clear, the claim form was sent to the address that was, at the time, the respondent’s registered office.[8]The respondent has never attempted to submit any response form (ET3) in respect of the claimant’s claim.[9]The respondent’s application for reconsideration sets out an explanation of why it was that the claimant was dismissed (said to be with immediate effect on 29 August 2023) following the unsuccessful application for CQC registration, which was said to have been the claimant’s fault.[10]Whatever the rights and wrongs of that there are two reasons why it is not a reason to vary or revoke the judgment.[11]First, the application does not address the fundamental problem that the respondent has never submitted a response form nor given any reason why they did not submit a response form in time. If the judgment were to be revoked we would be left in the same position that led to the judgment in the first place. There would be no valid response from the respondent, no application for extra time to submit a response nor any explanation as to why a response was not submitted in time.[12]Second, the matters set out in the reconsideration application address the position up to the end of August but not the period in September, October and November that the claimant’s claim relates to. There is nothing in the reconsideration application that suggests that the claimant is incorrect to say that he was given a new job in September and was not paid for it.