Employment Judge McCooeyMr D Jones (instructed by Counsel) for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 24 September 2025
JUDGMENT
The Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 22[1]The claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 21 October 2024. 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 in accordance with rule 22 of the Procedure Rules.[2]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed.[3]The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums: a) A basic award of £9,487.50 b) A compensatory award of £6,247.38 (net) c) A payment for loss of statutory rights of £500.[4]The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the compensatory award payable to the claimant by 20% in accordance with s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.The amount owing for this is £1,349.48[5]Total compensatory award with uplift: £8,096.86 Rule 22 Judgment 1 of 3[6]Note that these are actual the sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts have been applied.[7]When the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It is just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay. In accordance with section 38 Employment Act 2002 the respondent shall therefore pay the claimant £1,725.[8]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 to 11 June 2024.[9]The respondent shall pay the claimant £836.62, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance.[10]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended.[11]The respondent shall pay the claimant £133.69. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance.[12]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is dismissed upon withdrawal.[13]The total amount payable is £20,279.67 this is to be paid within 14 days of today’s date. Calculations Holiday pay Relevant period: 1 April to 11 June 24 – entitlement of 41.5 hours accrued; gross weekly pay. 41.5 gross divided by 37.5 gives multiplier of 1.11 1.11 x week’s pay – £431.35£478.69 minus £345 already paid Compensatory award Losses from 11.6.24 -17.10.24 = 6247.38 total 20.5 weeks (8.5 weeks salary +3 month’s notice) Rule 22 Judgment 2 of 3 Approved by EJ McCooey 24 September 202513 October 2025 ……………………………. ………………..………….. Rule 22 Judgment 3 of 3 RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT The Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 – Rules 68-70 The respondent’s application for reconsideration of my judgment dated 24 September 2025 is refused as there is no reasonable prospect of it being varied or revoked. Background[1]The claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 21 October 2024.[2]The respondent failed to present a valid response on time and Judgment was entered following the Rule 22 of the Procedure Rules at a hearing following oral evidence from the claimant. The respondent did not attend.[3]The Claimant’s effective date of termination was 11 June 2024. Acas early conciliation was entered into on 20 June 2024 and ended on 1 August 2024.[4]The complaints of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars and holiday pay were found to be well-founded.[5]Judgment was entered of a total award of £20,279.67. Respondent’s applications Rule 22 Judgment 1 of 3[6]On 27 October 2025, the respondent applied for reconsideration of that Judgment under Rule 70 on the basis that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.[7]The respondent also applied on the same date for an extension of time for presentation of its response under Rule 21 and/or Rule 5(7). A response was attached which I have considered.[8]The reconsideration application is out of time, the deadline for reconsideration under Rule 70(2) being 14 days from Judgment which would be 8 October 2025. The respondent also sought an extension of time in respect of that.[9]The email incorrectly states 20 December 2024 as the deadline by which the response was due, but the response was due 28 days from notice of the ET1 which was 21 October 2024. In any event, the response is now presented around one year out of time.[10]The reasons for the delay in presenting a response and therefore the grounds upon which to reconsider include: i) the respondent’s director being unwell in the past year; her mother passed away in May 2024 and her son began having regular panic attacks around that time. It says, ‘she has not been able to cope well since.’ ii) The tribunal papers were misplaced and the claimant did not liaise with her to provide evidence. iii) The respondent was not legally represented until 23 October 2025 (after the hearing) leaving them ‘unsure how to proceed’[11]A hearing was sought by the respondent to consider both applications pursuant to Rule 21(2)(c).[12]The claimant opposed both applications, pointing to the lack of meritorious grounds for granting either; the delay in making the applications; and the need for finality in proceedings.[13]The applications were referred to me by the Tribunal Office on 23 December 2025. Conclusion[14]In reaching my decision, I have considered the overriding objective in accordance with Rule 3, and the case authorities relied on by each party, Kwik Save Stores Limited v Swain and others [1997] ICR 49 and Impactdisk Ltd v Lucek [2006] UKEAT 0357_06_2012.[15]The reconsideration request is out of time. However, even if I were to allow an extension of time for that application, I consider there to be no reasonable prosects of the original judgment being varied or revoked based on the reasons given by the respondent. Rule 22 Judgment 2 of 3[16]They do not amount to an adequate explanation for the significant delay in this case; no medical evidence was provided in support of the application nor was any persuasive connection made between the personal events happening in May 2024 and the hearing date in September 2025.[17]There was no reasonable explanation for the failure to obtain legal representation until after the hearing in September 2025, or to communicate the respondent’s difficulties in any way to the Tribunal during the time leading up to the hearing.[18]The response itself discloses no grounds on which to vary or revoke the original decision.[19]There has been a passage of around 15 months since the issue of the claim and the need for finality in proceedings is highly relevant in this case, bearing in mind the delays acknowledged by the respondent.[20]For the same reasons, I consider that the respondent has no reasonable prospects of successfully extending time for its response; the reasons for the delay being unsatisfactory.[21]Accordingly, there will be no hearing to determine the respondent’s applications. Approved by