Mr K MacPherson v John Lewis plc: 3307484/2020
JUDGMENT
No response having been received to the Claimant’s claim The Claimant was unfairly dismissed. A hearing to determine the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be listed and notice of hearing letters will be sent in due course. In order to assist the parties to prepare for that hearing I make the following Case Management Orders:[1]The Claimant will file and serve a schedule setting out the financial losses which he claims in this case together with a copy of all supporting documents by 16 December 2020 including documents relating to his attempts to find work and all work undertaken since the termination o his employment with the respondent. _____________________________ Employment Judge Ord Dated: 27 November 20 Judgment sent to the parties on Date: 2 December 20 For the Tribunal office Case Number: 3307484/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr Kelvin MacPherson v John Lewis Plc Heard at: Cambridge (by CVP) On: 19 May 2021 Before: Employment Judge Ord (sitting alone) Appearances For the Claimant: Mr O Fuller, Counsel For the Respondent: Ms A Meredith, Counsel JUDGMENT on RECONSIDERATION The Judgment dated 27 November 2020 is revoked.[2]The date for presentation of the Respondent’s Response is extended to today, 19 May 2021.[3]The Draft Response submitted by the Respondent on 18 December 2020 is accepted as the Respondent’s Response to the Claimant’s complaints.REASONS
[1]I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities and based upon the evidence filed by way of a Witness Statement from Ms Fitzpatrick that the original Claim Form, sent to the Respondent at Spedan House in Bracknell was not received.[2]The Respondent had systems in place for dealing with post received at that address during the Coronavirus pandemic and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that had it been received it would have come to the attention of the Respondent.[3]There is no prejudice to the Claimant in setting aside the Judgment which was entered in default of a Response other than the period of delay which has enured. He loses a “windfall” victory, but the Respondent clearly has Grounds of Resistance to the Claimant’s complaint which are worthy of Case Number: 3307484/2020 2 being heard. The balance of prejudice falls clearly on the side of allowing the Respondent to resist the claim based on the documents submitted.[4]I note in addition that notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent provided information to all of the Regional Offices of the Employment Tribunal of an email address to which any Claim Form should be sent, in accordance with the Presidential Guidance, no copy of the documents were sent to that email address in this case.