Mr S Haxhiu and Mr A Bejaj v Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions) Ltd: 3301084/2021 and 3301085/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]For the reasons given in the oral judgment at the hearing, the First Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal succeeds, subject to a 60% contributory fault.[2]For the reasons given in the oral judgment at the hearing, the Second Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal succeeds, subject to a 75% contributory fault.[3]A remedies hearing will be listed on 2 October 2023. _REASONS
With apologies to the Claimant for the delay in providing this Judgment. The application was first brought to my attention on 19 November 2024 and has been dealt with the same day. There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because;[1]Reg 3 (1)(a) ) Employment Protection (recoupment of benefits) Regulations 1996 says that recoupment applies as follows; “(a) to the payments described in column 1 of the table contained in the Schedule to these Regulations, being, in each case, payments which are the subject of employment tribunal proceedings of the kind described in the corresponding entry in column 2 and the prescribed element in relation to each such payment is so much of the relevant monetary award as is attributable to the matter described in the corresponding entry in column 3”[2]Column 3 of box 7 of the Schedule refers to the award, as “ Any amount ordered to be paid and calculated under s.123 in respect of compensation for loss of wages for a period before the conclusion of the tribunal Case Number 3301084/2021 proceedings”.[3]The period therefore to which the recoupment applies is the set out in Reg 3(c ) as “the dates of the period to which the prescribed element is attributable”.[4]In this case the period from the Effective Date of Termination on 23 December 2020 to the date the remedy judgment was completed on 18 April 2024. It could be argued that this should be the 22 April 2024 as the date the judgment was sent to the parties, but I am not willing to alter it at this late stage.[5]There is therefore no error in the judgment and the application is refused.