Mr B Malunga v Phil Healthcare Services Ltd: 3302315/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £1,326.00 _____________________________ Employment Judge R Lewis Date: 12/2/2024[2]JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 12/2/2024 AND ENTERED IN THE REGISTER N Gotecha FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE[3]Case Number: 3302315/2023 1 of 3 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr B Malunga Respondent: Phil Healthcare Services Ltd Heard at: Cambridge On: 29 May 2025 Before: Employment Judge Tynan (sitting alone) Appearances For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Did not attend and was not represented JUDGMENT on APPLICATION for RECONSIDERATION Upon the Respondent’s application dated 10 April 2024 to reconsider the judgment dated 12 February 2024 (sent to the parties on 4 March 2024) under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 (formerly Rule 71 of the 2013 Rules), the Tribunal determines that it is not necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider its judgment.REASONS
[1]On 12 February 2024 Employment Judge R Lewis made a judgment in favour of the Claimant in which he ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the sum of £1,326.00. On 10 April 2024 the Respondent applied for reconsideration of the judgment and for the judgment to be set aside on the grounds that it was unaware of the claim until it received the judgment. It denied that any monies are owed to the Claimant.[2]The application has come before me as Employment Judge R Lewis has now retired. Notice of today’s hearing was sent to the Claimant and the Respondent’s then advisers, Peninsula on 11 December 2024. Five days later, Peninsula wrote to the Tribunal to advise that they were no longer instructed in the matter. They copied the Respondent into their email to the Tribunal, evidencing their diligence in keeping the Respondent informed in the matter. I Case Number: 3302315/2023 2 of 3 am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of today’s hearing but has chosen not to attend.[3]In failing to attend today’s hearing, the Respondent has denied the Claimant the opportunity to question Ms Agbaw, a director of the Respondent on the contents of her witness statement dated 10 April 2024 submitted in support of the reconsideration application, specifically why the Respondent claims to have been unaware of the claim and why it claims to have arguable grounds to resist the claim.[4]It is for the Respondent to establish that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Tribunal reconsider its judgment. Ms Agbaw’s witness statement does not address what arrangements are in place at the company to deal with correspondence, including legal proceedings, nor does she offer any explanation as to why correspondence from the Tribunal might not have come to the company’s attention, not least in circumstances where it did receive the judgment. Likewise, her witness statement barely touches upon why the Claimant might have been paid all sums due to him: she does not identify what sums he was paid or the dates she says he failed to attend work.[5]I note from Companies House that the Respondent’s annual confirmation statement is currently overdue, which suggests that the Respondent may not be attending to legal and governance issues.[6]In my judgement, it is not necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment, as there is insufficient evidence before me to be satisfied that the Respondent was unaware of the claim until the Rule 21 judgment was granted. In any event there is no obvious reason for me to set aside the judgment in favour of the Claimant. His claim identifies the dates that he says he worked for the Respondent but was not paid: the Respondent has failed to place any, or any material, information before the Tribunal to call this into question.[7]For these reasons, the Respondent’s application to reconsider the judgment is refused. Approved by: