Miss D Mazylyte v Sweet Indulgent Trio Ltd and Jadore Cake Ltd: 3306639/2024 and 3306539/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]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 respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £872.00 gross.[3]The respondent must pay the claimant £872.00 in total. Approved by: RECONSIDERATIONREASONS
[1]I have undertaken preliminary consideration of the First & Second Respondents' application for reconsideration. The First & Second Respondents’ application was presented more than 14 days outside the time limit to make an application for reconsideration. Furthermore, the application is not accompanied by an application to extend time in respect of the reconsideration application, nor is there an application to extend time in respect of the response form with a draft response form attached.[2]Rule 5 ETPR gives me the power to extend time in respect of any matter to which the ETPR apply. However, the First & Second Respondents have provided me with a reason to do so in respect of the reconsideration, nor have they applied for such an extension of time. Whilst the First & Second Respondents have stated in their application that they were told by a clerk on receiving the Employment Tribunal’s correspondence that the Respondents would be prevented from defending the claim and to wait for a hearing date, the address for the service of the claim form via notice of claim sent on 23 September 2024 was sent to an address which is referred to by First & Second Respondents in the contract documents that were provided as a place of work. The First & Second Respondents have not said that it was not a valid address of the Respondents. Furthermore, the address the second copy of the Claim form, via a letter dated 13 February 2025, was sent to, was the registered address of the First Respondent at Companies House. In that letter, it stated that the First & Second Respondents could appeal the Legal Officer’s decision within 14 days. No appeal was received within 14 days.[3]The First & Second Respondents have confirmed in their application, they received the notice of claim that was sent to the registered office, but that it was not brought to their attention until 4 March 2025, more than 14 days after the time limit to appeal the Legal Officer’s decision. However, the judgment was sent to the same email address as given by the director of the First Respondent, Zara Wared-Zaman, in their phone call to the clerk. The judgment clearly stated that the application for a reconsideration should be made within 14 days of the judgment date. The First & Second Respondents have provided no explanation as to why the reconsideration application was not made in time.The Law
[4]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (rule 68 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (‘ETPR’)).[5]Rule 69 ETPR states “Except where it is made in the course of a here in an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the employment tribunal within 14 days of the latter of-(a) the date on which the written record of the judgements ought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or(b) the date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately.”[6]Rule 70(1) ETPR empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[7]The importance of finality was expressed succinctly by Mrs Justice Simler sitting as President in the EAT decision of Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16. Simler P said in paragraph 34 that: “a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to reargue matters in a different way or by adopting points previously omitted. There is an underlying public policy principle in all judicial proceedings that there should be finality in litigation, and reconsideration applications are a limited exception to that rule. They are not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry, nor are they intended to provide parties with the opportunity of a rehearing at which the same evidence and the same arguments can be rehearsed but with different emphasis or additional evidence that was previously available being tendered.”[8]In common with all powers under the ETPR, preliminary consideration under rule 70(1) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective as set out in rule 3, namely, to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues and avoiding delay. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication.Conclusion
[9]The First & Second Respondents’ application was not submitted in time and so cannot be considered as a reconsideration application. However, even if the Employment Tribunal was to extend time to consider the application, the application had no reasonable prospects of success as the First & Second Respondents have failed to explain why no response form was provided to the Employment Tribunal at any point to the complaint. It follows that if there is currently no defence to the claim, and there is no reason why judgment would not be issued. In those circumstances, the application for reconsideration is refused. Approved by: