Mr S Tempesta v Holtwhites Hotel and Daycare Centre (an unincorporated partnership) and Others: 3314987/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages is dismissed on withdrawal. This does not affect the other complaints.[2]Permission to amend having been refused, there are no complaints of age discrimination before the tribunal.[3]There are no existing claims against Ms Baciu or Mr Gonzalez, and therefore the Second Respondent and the Third Respondent are dismissed from these proceedings. This does not affect the claims against the other respondents.REASONS
[1]I have separately provided written reasons for the case management orders that were made at the hearing (and, in particular, the reasons for refusing the amendment request). I will therefore not repeat the contents of that document.[2]After I had refused the amendment, I informed the parties that it did not appear that:2.1 there was any age discrimination claim (because the only complaints of age discrimination were contained in the allegations for which permission to amend was required, and I had refused permission to amend)2.2 there was any complaint that could be brought against Ms Baciu or Mr Gonzalez (because the only remaining claims were those which could only Case Number: 3314987/2019 2 of 2 be brought against his employer, and the Claimant did not allege that either of them was his employer).[3]I heard submissions from Ms Omotosho that I should therefore give judgment confirming that age discrimination allegations were not part of the proceedings and dismissing Ms Baciu and Mr Gonzalez as individual respondents.[4]The Claimant did not want me to do that, and asked for time to consider his position. I gave him 14 days to make written submissions on the point. I told him that it appeared to be correct that I should issue a judgment in terms similar to those requested by the Respondents’ representative but I would be willing to consider any points that he wished to make once he had had time to reflect.[5]I declined the Respondents’ request that I should make any Unless Order. It was a matter for the Claimant to decide what – if any – submissions he wished to make on the matter.[6]I considered the file on 5 July, having asked for a search for any and all correspondence to be carried out. I took into account: the Claimant’s emails of 19 April 2021 at 11:25 and 20 April at 12:38; Ms Omotosho’s email of 20 April at 14:59; the Claimant’s email of 3 May 2021 at 01:54; Ms Omotosho’s email of 27 May 2021.[7]Having considered the matter as a whole, and taking account of those representations, there was no age discrimination complaint (or any other Equality Act claim) before the tribunal. There was no claim before the tribunal which could be brought against anyone other than the employer (the remaining complaints being automatic unfair dismissal and ordinary unfair dismissal). Although the Claimant refers to what EJ Lewis had been able to glean from the Information Disclosure document, that was not part of his original claim. For those reasons, I issued the judgment dated 5 July 2021. __________________________ Employment Judge Quill Date: 29 November 2021 Sent to the parties on: 29 November 2021 For the Tribunal: Case Number: 3314987/2019 ph judgment + cm Nov 1 2014 wip version EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr Stefano Tempesta v 1. Holtwhites Hotel & Day Care Centre (an unincorporated partnership) 4. Mr Paul Buxton 5. Mr Sawas Michael 6. Holtwhites Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Watford (in public) On: 1 March 2022 Before: Employment Judge Alliott (sitting alone) Appearances: For the Claimant: Did not attend For the Respondents: Ms B Omotosho (Solicitor)claim.
[8]In this case, I gave judgment and oral reasons on the day of the preliminary Case No: 3314987/2019 Page 3 of 4 hearing. I also produced a separate case management and summary document. These were sent to the Claimant on 17 August 2021.[9]The Claimant submitted an email dated 26 October 2021, seeking written reasons which he said he needed in order to appeal. Written reasons were produced, dated 11 November 2021, and sent to the parties, along with some case management orders.[10]On 4 December 2021, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal, without (as far as I know) copying in the Respondent.[11]On 28 February 2022, the Respondent wrote to the Tribunal, forwarding copies of some emails sent by the Claimant to the Respondent and the Tribunal.[12]On 28 February, I made the following decision. Although the paper file is slightly unclear, as far as I can tell this was sent to the parties at 12:48 on that date: Employment Judge Quill has considered the Respondent’s application dated 28 February 2022 (which included copies of correspondence between the parties). The hearing remains listed in person as per the orders made at the preliminary hearing. Any application for strike out can be made at the outset of the hearing, if pursued. My written reasons for the decisions for the case management decisions at the hearing and for the judgment sent to parties on 17 August 2021 were both sent to parties on 29 November 2021. In those documents, I noted that the Claimant had said that he would potentially make an application for me to reconsider and said that, if that was his intention, he would need to write to tribunal with copy to the Respondent within 14 days. The Claimant does not appear to have done that. I note that he sent an email to the tribunal on 4 December 2021, which was not copied to the Respondent. I do not necessarily regard his email of 4 December 2021 as an application for reconsideration. However, to the extent that that was the Claimant’s intention, there are no reasonable prospects of my decisions being changed and the application is refused.[13]On 28 February 2022, at 14:28, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal, without (as far as I know) copying in the Respondent. For present purposes, I will say no more than that one of the sentences started, “Please consider this email as a formal request to reconsider your decisions, …”. Both before and after that, the words used make clear that the Claimant strongly believes that(a) my decisions were wrong and(b) that I should change my decisions. However, nothing written in the email specifically engaged with the reasons that the claims were dismissed (or the reasons that the amendments were refused).[14]Nothing in the Claimant’s email of 28 February 2022 (or 4 December or 26 October 2021) causes me to think that the decisions at the preliminary hearing, or the reasons for them, were incorrect. Case No: 3314987/2019 Page 4 of 4[15]For the reasons stated above, having considered the Claimant’s application, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and the application is refused.