Mr H Ahmed v Fast Despatch Logistics Ltd: 3302061/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim was presented in the South-East Employment Tribunal on 22nd February 2023. 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, or part of it, in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The claim succeeds and the remedy to which the Claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. Approved by:REASONS
[2]Having revisited the date of the ET1, the claim for unpaid wages was presented outside the time limit contained in section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 such that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of it.[3]The Tribunal has power to reconsider a judgment on its own initiative under Rule 70 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.[4]In accordance with that Rule the parties may within 14 days of the date upon which they are notified of a reconsideration on the Tribunal’s own initiative:a. make written representations to the Tribunal (copied to the other side) about whether the Rule 22 judgment should be confirmed, varied or revoked; orb. request, giving reasons, that this is determined at a hearing: the Tribunal will consider any such request when deciding whether a hearing is necessary in the interests of justice.[5]By case management order dated 19 November 2025 Regional Employment Judge Foxwell notified both parties of this right. This case management order was sent to parties on 26 November 2025. Therefore, the deadline for parties to contact the Tribunal was 10 December 2025.[6]The file was referred to Employment Judge Hutchings on 16 January 2026. At this time neither party has make written representations to the Tribunal or requested a hearing. Therefore, I reconsidered by judgment.[7]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a delivery driver from 15 May 2022 until 29 July 2022. Early conciliation started on 27 September 2022 and ended on 21 October 2022. The claim form was presented on 22 February 2023.[8]The claimant misspelled the respondent’s name in his claim form: the correct name is Fast Despatch Logistics Limited with an “e”, rather than “Fast Dispatch” with an “i”. This makes a difference as the former has the registered office in Peterborough cited by the claimant whereas the latter is a separate company with its seat in Exeter. Therefore, at the cae management hearing Employment Judge Foxwell amended the respondent’s name.[9]The claim is about unpaid wages. The respondent has failed to enter a response.[10]On 20 June 2025 I made a Rule 22 judgment in the claimant’s favour for a sum to be determined at a hearing. The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 July 2025. The hearing to determine the claimant’s remedy was was listed for 19 November 2025. A Notice of Hearing was sent to the claimant’s home address and the respondent’s registered office on 20 June 2025. Neither party attended that hearing before Regional Employment Judge Foxwell. Attempts were made by the Tribunal clerk to contact the claimant by telephone and by email but without success.[11]On reviewing the file Regional Employment Judge Foxwell noted that the Tribunal may not have had jurisdiction in respect of this claim as it appears to have been presented outside the time limit contained in section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as adjusted in accordance with the early conciliation provisions. Having reviewed the dates of the ET1 claim form and ACAS conciliation, I agree.[12]The primary time limit expired on 29 November 2022 at the latest (assuming payment was due on 31 August 2022). A further 24 days spent in early conciliation needs to be added to this, taking the final day for presentation of this claim to 23 December 2022. The claim was, it appears, presented two months later on 22 February 2023.[13]Given these circumstances, and the fact that neither party attended the case management hearing or responded to Regional Employment Judge Foxwell’s orders, I consider it just and fair to revoke the Tribunal will the Rule 22 judgement. I have dismissed the claimant’s claim as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it. Date: 16 January 2026 Approved by