Ms L Irvine v VRP and Sons Ltd and Mr P V Patel: 3318823/2019

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3318823/2019

Between

Ms L IrvineClaimant

VRP and Sons Ltd and Mr P V PatelRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Anstis

Date 14 May 2021

JUDGMENT

Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Response

[1]The Respondent failed to present a response to the claim and judgment is entered in favour of the Claimant as follows. Unauthorised Deduction from Wages

[2]The Claimant is owed unpaid holiday pay and is awarded £3,288.60 in compensation. The Respondent is ordered to pay this sum to the Claimant. Notice pay

[3]The Claimant is owed pay in respect of her notice period and is awarded £587.25 in compensation. The Respondent is ordered to pay this sum to the Claimant. Unfair dismissal, pregnancy or maternity discrimination

[4]The Claimant was unfairly dismissed and subject to pregnancy or maternity discrimination by the Respondent.

[5]The hearing listed for 14:00 on 4 November 2019 is converted to a hearing to decide on any remedy for unfair dismissal and pregnancy or maternity discrimination, and to decide whether the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment (and if so, how much). Public Access to Employment Tribunal Judgments

[6]The parties are informed that all judgments and reasons for judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant and Respondent. ______________________ Employment Judge Anstis 21 August 2019 Case Number: 3318823/2019 Page 2 of 2 Sent to the parties on …………04.09.19……………….. ……………….……………...…….. for the Tribunal Office Case Number: 3318823/2019 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss Louise Irvine Respondent:(1) VRP and Sons Limited

(2) Mr Paras Vijay Patel RULE 21 JUDGMENT MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 21 OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS RULES OF PROCEDURE 2013 The time limit for presenting a response having expired on 6 January 2020 and no response having been presented. Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto has decided on the available material that a determination can properly be made, and judgment given as follows:

[1]The claimant’s claim for damages for breach of contract (notice pay) succeeds. The respondents are ordered to pay to the claimant £587.25.

[2]The respondents failed to pay the claimant for annual leave. The respondents are ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £3288.60.

[3]It is declared that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.

[4]It is declared that the respondents discriminated against the claimant contrary to sections 18 and 39 Employment Act 2010.

[5]The claimant is not entitled to a redundancy payment.

[6]The determination of the remedy that the claimant is entitled to in respect of unfair dismissal and discrimination shall be determined without a hearing on the 15 June 2020, unless either party makes an application that a hearing should take place at which the parties attend.

[7]The parties are to send to the employment tribunal and copy to each other any written representations they wish to make in respect of remedy to arrive at the employment tribunal and the other party by no later than the 8 June 2020. Case Number: 3318823/2019 2

REASONS

[1]The claimant was employed by VRP and Sons Limited (the first respondent) as a shop assistant at 36 Bicester Road, Launton, Oxfordshire, OX26 5DQ from 8 December 2015 until 16 January 2019. The claimant was employed to work 25 hours a week and paid about £200 per week.

[2]On 4 September 2019 an Employment Judge gave judgment to the claimant pursuant to rule 21 in the sum of £3,288.60 in respect of unpaid wages and £587.25 in respect of notice pay. The judgment was made against VRP and Sons Limited. The case was listed for hearing on 4 November 2019 to decide on any remedy for unfair dismissal, compensation for pregnancy or maternity discrimination, and to decide whether the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment (and if so, how much).

[3]At the hearing on the 4 November 2019 the claimant gave evidence, in a witness statement, that she had discovered, on 14 October 2019, that VRP and Sons Limited was to be dissolved on the 15 October 2019. The claimant contacted Companies House and was informed that it was too late to prevent the dissolution of the company. The claimant also discovered that she should have been informed that there had been an application made for dissolution of VRP and Sons Limited made by the directors of the company. The claimant had not been informed. The application for dissolution of the company had been made on 30 July 2019 by Mr Paras Vijay Patel and other directors of the respondent. Mr Paras Vijay Patel was the person to whom the claimant reported, he was in all practical terms her employer.

[4]The claimant had presented her complaint against VRP and Sons Limited to the employment tribunal on the 5 June 2019. There was no response received to the claim in the time allowed for a response and a rule 21 judgment in the terms set out above was made. The application for dissolution of the company was made after the first respondent had been given notice of the proceedings brought by the claimant. The failure to give notice to the claimant of the application for dissolution of the first respondent may amount to a criminal offence by Mr Paras Vijay Patel and or the other directors of VRP and Sons Limited who made the application for dissolution under the provision of the Companies Act 2006.

[5]The shop in which the claimant worked continued to trade as normal without any obvious change, Mr Paras Vijay Patel and his brother continued to work in the shop as had previously been the case.

[6]Mr Paras Vijay Patel was added as a party to the proceedings at the hearing on the 4 November 2019. The proceedings were sent to Mr Paras Vijay Patel at three addresses, the shop, the registered address of the company and Mr Paras Vijay Patels home address. A response was required by 6 January 2020. Since the hearing on the 4 November 2019 the claimant has been into the shop and spoken to Mr Paras Vijay Patel Case Number: 3318823/2019 3 who confirmed that he had received the papers relating to the claimant’s case from the employment tribunal. The claimant was also able see that during her conversation with him that Mr Paras Vijay Patel had in his possession papers which she believed to be relating to her employment tribunal

claim.

[7]Mr Para Vijay Patel has not responded to the claim. Rule 21(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 provides that where on the expiry of the time limit in rule 16 no response has been presented, or any response received has been rejected and no application for a reconsideration is outstanding, or where the respondent has stated that no part of the claim is contested, paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply. Rule 21 (2) provides that an Employment Judge shall decide whether on the available material (which may include further information which the parties are required by a Judge to provide), a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it. To the extent that a determination can be made, the Judge shall issue a judgment accordingly. Otherwise, a hearing shall be fixed before a Judge alone. Rule 21 (3) provides that the respondent shall be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but, unless and until an extension of time is granted, shall only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Judge.

[8]I have considered the available material and I have come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to a judgment against the Mr Paras Vijay Patel and VRP and Sons Limited with those parties being jointly and severally liable for the remedy. My reasons for this conclusion are as follows:(i) The claimant was employed by the first respondent which was the vehicle by which the second respondent operate the business in which the claimant was employed as a shop assistant. The second respondent was the director of the first respondent. It was the second respondent (and other directors of the first respondent) who made the application for dissolution of the first respondent.

(ii) The dissolution of the first respondent was carried out as a cynical attempt to defeat the claimant’s entitlement to a remedy arising from the egregiously unlawful way in which the claimant was dismissed by the respondents.

(iii) The second respondent has failed, in my view deliberately, to give notice to the claimant that an application for a dissolution of the first respondent company was being made by the directors as is required by provisions of the Companies Act 2006 which require former employees to whom money is owed and creditors to be notified of the application. I am satisfied that this was a deliberate act because during the online process for making an application to strike out a company the applicant is informed that it is a criminal offence not to inform the categories of person mentioned.

[9]I am further satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of the provisions of section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 and that the respondents discriminated against the claimant contrary to the Case Number: 3318823/2019 4 provisions of section 18 Equality Act 2010 in dismissing the claimant. My reasons for this conclusion are as follows:(i) In April 2018 the claimant went on maternity leave and Mr Paras Vijay Patel refused to pay the claimant her statutory maternity pay. The claimant was required to resort to HMRC who enforced payment of the claimant’s maternity pay, this took several months to achieve.

(ii) The claimant attempted to return from maternity leave on 9 January 2019 and was sent away by Mr Paras Vijay Patel who told her to return the following week. On 16 January 2019 Mr Paras Vijay Patel informed the claimant she was dismissed. At the time of dismissing the claimant he informed her that he could no longer afford to pay her. The claimant was aware that someone had been employed to carry out work that she had carried prior to going on maternity leave, this person continued in employment.

(iii) The reason for the actions of Mr Paras Vijay Patel were connected to the fact that the claimant had enforced her right to statutory maternity pay. Mr Paras Vijay Patel was acting in retaliation for the claimant’s enforcement of her statutory rights.

[10]The claimant is therefore entitled to the following judgment against the respondents jointly and severally.a. The respondents are ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £3268.60 in respect of holiday pay.

b. The respondents are ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £527.37 in respect of the notice pay.

c. It is declared that the respondents unfairly dismissed the claimant.

d. It is declared that the respondents unlawfully discriminated against the claimant contrary to sections 18 and 39 Employment Rights Act 2010.

[11]The determination of the remedy that the claimant is entitled to in respect of unfair dismissal and discrimination shall be determined without a hearing on the 15 June 2020, unless either party makes an application that a hearing should take place at a hearing which the parties attend.

[12]The parties are to send to the tribunal and each other any written representations they wish to make in respect of remedy to arrive at the tribunal and the other party by no later than the 8 June 2020. _____________________________ Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Case Number: 3318823/2019 5 Date: 18 May 2020 Sent to the parties on: .....04.06.2020.... ...GDJ......................................... For the Tribunals Office Case No: 3318823/2019 (T) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms L Irvine Respondent:(1) VRP and Sons Limited,

(2) Mr Para Vijay Patel Heard at: Reading On:15 June 2020 Before: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Representation: Claimant: Written Representations dated 1 June 2020 Respondent: No representation

[1]In a judgment sent to the parties on the 4 September 2019 the Tribunal made an award of £3,288.60 in compensation to the claimant for unauthorised deductions from wages and the tribunal also awarded the claimant the sum of £587.35 in respect of notice pay. The award was made against the first respondent, VRP and Sons Limited.

[2]The Tribunal also found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the respondent had discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of Case Number: S7.1 2 pregnancy or maternity discrimination. A hearing was listed to take place on 4 November 2019 to decide on any remedy for unfair dismissal and pregnancy or maternity discrimination and to consider whether the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment.

[3]On the 4 November 2019 Mr Para Vijay Patel was added as second respondent to the proceedings. The claim was sent to the first respondent and to the second respondent at his place of business, and at Victoria House, 18 Dalston Gardens, Stanmore, Middlesex, England, HA7 1BU. On the basis of the information provided to me by the claimant I am satisfied that the second respondent is aware of the proceedings.

[4]The matter came before the Tribunal on the 18 May 2020 at a closed preliminary hearing conducted by telephone. The claimant attended and was assisted by Miss Mary Kelly. The respondent did not attend.

[5]For the reasons set out in the judgment dated the 18 May 2020 I was satisfied that the claimant is entitled to a judgment against the second respondent. I determined that the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment.

[6]I am satisfied that the case is suitable for a determination on the remaining issues between the parties, remedy for unfair dismissal and pregnancy or maternity discrimination, by consideration of the papers. I gave the parties notice of this and informed the parties that a remedy hearing at which the parties were in attendance would be listed if requested by either of the parties. No request for the hearing to take place with the parties present was made and I have therefore made this determination on the papers before me.

[7]The matters to be determined are:(1) whether the claimant is entitled to, and if so, the amount of a basic award and or compensatory award for unfair dismissal,

(2) whether the claimant is entitled to, and if so, the amount of any compensation for pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

[8]Section 118 Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that where a tribunal makes an award of compensation for unfair dismissal the award shall consist of a basic award and a compensatory award. The basic award is calculated in accordance with section 119.

[9]The claimant was employed by the respondent from 8 December 2015 until 16 January 2019, three complete years. The claimant’s date of birth is 22 October 1989. Applying the provisions of section 119 the claimant is entitled to a basic award of £ 600.1 1 3 (years employment) x1 (week’s pay for each year of employment) x £200 (week’s pay) Case Number: S7.1 3

[10]The claimant is also entitled to a compensatory award. The amount of the compensatory award shall be such amount as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the loss sustained by the claimant in consequence of the dismissal in so far as that loss is attributable to action taken by the employer.

[11]The claimant has been and continues to be unemployed since her dismissal. The claimant has not been in receipt of income support or job seekers allowance. The award of compensation is not subject to the recoupment provisions. The claimant would have returned to work with the aspiration of working 25 hours a week, which would have resulted in pay of about £218 per week (based on the national minimum wage). The claimant’s loss of earnings to the date of the hearing is in the region of about £15,914 to the date of the hearing2.

[12]I am satisfied that the claimant has attempted to mitigate her loss. The claimant is a parent of four young children, two of whom live with her and her partner and another two who she shares the care of with her expartner. The claimant does not drive and lives in a village with no regular public transport. The claimant is by her circumstances effectively excluded from many potential roles. The claimant’s employment with the respondent was very enabled the claimant to work within the restrictions imposed by her childcare responsibilities.

[13]The claimant is entitled to an award of compensation for the loss of her statutory rights. I consider that an award of compensation equivalent to two week’s pay is just and equitable, in the sum of £436.

[14]The amount of the compensatory award is limited by section 124 Employment Rights Act 1996. In the claimant’s case therefore, the compensatory award for unfair dismissal is limited to £11,336.

[15]The claimant claims an award for injury to feelings. She contends that the award of compensation for injury to feelings should be in the middle band of the Vento guidelines.

[16]I am satisfied that the claimant has suffered significant injury to feelings. The claimant has lost her job because of discrimination. The impact of losing her job is likely to continue for an indefinable period. The claimant’s circumstances are such that it is not easy for her to find alternative employment. The claimant felt that that the respondent has acted in “total disregard for the legal protection” she is afforded as a woman and that the respondent “believes he can just ignore the law”.

[17]I consider that an award of compensation for injury to feelings in the sum of £9000 is appropriate in this case. 2 71 weeks x £218 Case Number: S7.1 4

[18]As the claimant remains unemployed, has attempted to mitigate her loss and has no immediate prospect of finding alternative employment. I consider that the claimant should recover an award of compensation for loss of earnings up to the date of assessment of this award. The award for loss of earnings should therefore be made in the sum of £15,914.

[19]I make the following award of compensation to the claimant: Unfair dismissal:(a) Basic award: £600

(b) Compensatory award: £436 Discrimination Pregnancy or Maternity:

(d) Loss of earnings: £15,914

[20]The claimant is also entitled to an award of interest on the award of compensation for discrimination.

[21]The Claimant is entitled to an award of interest on the sum of £9,000 compensation made in respect of injury to feelings. The award of interest is made pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996 (as amended by the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2013). The award of interest is made in respect of the period from the 19 January 2019 until the 15 June 2020. The rate of interest during the relevant period is 8%3. The interest awarded is therefore £1,037.59.4

[22]The claimant is entitled to an award of interest on the sum of £15,914 compensation for loss of earnings. The award of interest is made pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996 (as amended by the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2013). The award of interest is made in respect of the period from the mid-point between 19 January 2019 until the 15 June 2020. The rate of interest during the relevant period is 8%. The interest awarded is therefore £913.86.5 3 Regulation 3 (2) provides that “Subject to paragraph (3) , the rate of interest to be applied shall be, in England and Wales, the rate fixed, for the time being, by section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 …”. 4 (8 % x £9000)÷365 x 526 days = £1,037.59 Interest awarded 5 (8% x £15,914)÷365 x 262 days = £913.86 interest awarded Case Number: S7.1 5

[23]The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the following sums (a) £1,036 for unfair dismissal, (2) £24,914 for pregnancy and maternity discrimination and (3) Interest of £1,951.45. _________________________________ Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Dated: 15 June 2020

[7]The matters to be determined are:(1) whether the claimant is entitled to, and if so, the amount of a basic award and or compensatory award for unfair dismissal,

(2) whether the claimant is entitled to, and if so, the amount of any compensation for pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

[14]The amount of the compensatory award is limited by section 124 Employment Rights Act 1996. In the claimant’s case therefore, the compensatory award for unfair dismissal is limited to £11,336.

[15]The claimant claims an award for injury to feelings. She contends that the award of compensation for injury to feelings should be in the middle band of the Vento guidelines.

[17]I consider that an award of compensation for injury to feelings in the sum of £9000 is appropriate in this case. 2 71 weeks x £218 Case Number: S7.1 4

[19]I make the following award of compensation to the claimant: Unfair dismissal:(a) Basic award: £600

(b) Compensatory award: £436 Discrimination Pregnancy or Maternity:

(d) Loss of earnings: £15,914

[20]The claimant is also entitled to an award of interest on the award of compensation for discrimination.

[1]The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure at Rule 20 deal with applications for extension of time for presenting response to a claim. The rule provides(1) An application for an extension of time for presenting a response shall be presented in writing and copied to the claimant. It shall set out the reason why the extension is sought and shall, except where the time limit has not yet expired, be accompanied by a draft of the response which the respondent wishes to present or an explanation of why that is not possible and if the respondent wishes to request a hearing this shall be requested in the application.

(2) The claimant may within 7 days of receipt of the application give reasons in writing explaining why the application is opposed.

(3) An Employment Judge may determine the application without a hearing.

(4) If the decision is to refuse an extension, any prior rejection of the response shall stand. If the decision is to allow an extension, any judgment issued under rule 21 shall be set aside. At Rule 21 it is provided that Case No: 3318823/2019 Page 2 of 5 (1) Where on the expiry of the time limit in rule 16 no response has been presented, or any response received has been rejected and no application for a reconsideration is outstanding, or where the respondent has stated that no part of the claim is contested, paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply. (2) An Employment Judge shall decide whether on the available material (which may include further information which the parties are required by a Judge to provide), a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it. To the extent that a determination can be made, the Judge shall issue a judgment accordingly. Otherwise, a hearing shall be fixed before a Judge alone. Where a Judge has directed that a preliminary issue requires to be determined at a hearing, a judgment may be issued by a Judge under this rule after that issue has been determined without a further hearing. (3) The respondent shall be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but, unless and until an extension of time is granted, shall only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Judge.

[2]The respondent failed to provide a response to the claim, did not make any application for an extension of time and has not produced a draft of the response which the respondent wishes to present or provided an explanation of why that is not possible. The respondent has made an application for reconsideration of the judgment.

[3]Rule 70 sets out the principles. A Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. On reconsideration, the decision (“the original decision”) may be confirmed, varied or revoked. If it is revoked it may be taken again. Rule 72 sets out the process for dealing with a reconsideration application. Rule 72 (1) provides that An Employment Judge shall consider any application made under rule 71. If the Judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application shall be refused and the Tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal. Otherwise the Tribunal shall send a notice to the Case No: 3318823/2019 Page 3 of 5 parties setting a time limit for any response to the application by the other parties and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The notice may set out the Judge's provisional views on the application.

[4]The respondent has set out the basis of the application for reconsideration in an email dated 7 December 2021 from the respondent’s legal representative. The respondent has also provided a bundle of documents prepared for an application made to the High Court (Oxford District Registry) for stay of execution. The bundle of documents does not contain a draft response to the claim.

[5]The grounds on which the claimant makes an application for reconsideration appear to me to be(a) that the claimant became aware of proceedings in late September 2021,

(b) that the process was sent to the wrong address, (3) that the respondent did not receive notice of the tribunal claim. I have reviewed the employment tribunal file.

[7]On 23 November 2019 the employment tribunal sent a case management order to the parties including the respondent Mr Patel. The correspondence was addressed to “Mr PV Patel” and sent to 2 addresses, Victoria House,

[18]Dalston Gardens, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 1BU and also at 12 Barton Road, Comberton, Cambridge CB23 7BP. In his witness statement in support of the application for a stay of execution the respondent confirms that the latter address is his home address. 8. On 8 December 2019 the employment tribunal sent to “Mr Paras Vijay Patel” a copy of the ET1 claim form. This was sent to the respondent at Victoria House, 18 Dalston Gardens, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 1BU and also at 12 Barton Road, Comberton, Cambridge CB23 7BP. 9. On 8 May 2020 a notice of preliminary hearing by telephone to take place on the 18 May 2020 at 10 am was sent to “Mr P V Patel” at the addresses Victoria House, 18 Dalston Gardens, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 1BU and also at 12 Barton Road, Comberton, Cambridge CB23 7BP. 10. On 4 June 2020 a Rule 21 Judgment signed on the 8 May 2020 was sent to the parties. The judgment was sent to “Mr Paras Vijjay Patel” at the addresses Victoria House, 18 Dalston Gardens, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 1BU and also at 12 Barton Road, Comberton, Cambridge CB23 7BP. 11. Following written representations from the claimant a judgment with reasons was made on 15 June 2020 and sent to the parties on 13 August 2020. The judgment was sent to “Mr Para Vijay Patel” at the addresses Victoria House, 18 Dalston Gardens, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 1BU and also at 12 Barton Road, Comberton, Cambridge CV23 7BP. In the application for reconsideration of the judgment the respondent accepts that Case No: 3318823/2019 Page 4 of 5 the judgment with reasons was received by him. I note that it is the only document that was incorrectly addressed but it was delivered nonetheless. 12. On 9 June 2021 a corrected judgment was sent to the parties. The corrected judgment does not appear to have been sent to the respondent Mr Patel but was sent to VRP and Sons Limited at 36 Bicester Road, Launton, Oxfordshire OX 26 5DQ. 13. Only one document was sent by the employment tribunal to the wrong address, nonetheless the error did not prevent the delivery of the letter. The error was transposing a V for a B in the post code of the address for the judgment of the 15 June 2020 sent to the parties on 13 August 2020. 14. The respondent says that he was not given notice of the employment tribunal claim and had no knowledge of the claim. I note that a copy of the ET1 was sent to the respondent at the correct address on 8 December 2019. The letter was not returned to the employment tribunal in the post as undelivered. A notice of preliminary hearing was sent to the parties on 18 May 2019 the copy to the respondent was sent to his correct address and was not returned to the employment tribunal as undelivered. A rule 21 judgment made on 18 May 2020 was sent to the respondent on 4 June 2020 at the correct address. The judgment with reasons made on the 15 June 2020 and sent to the parties on the 13 August 2020 was sent to the respondent at an incorrect address but was nonetheless delivered. There was no application made by the respondent to the employment tribunal on receipt of this document. 15. The corrected judgment was not sent to the respondent. However, I note that the correction was to add an ‘s’ after Para to read ‘Paras’. 16. Having taken into account all the matters set out above I have come to the conclusion that the process was properly followed by the employment tribunal in providing to the respondent notice of the claim and hearings. The respondent did not file a response or engage with the tribunal proceedings. None of the employment tribunal’s correspondence was returned as undelivered. I am not satisfied that the respondent did not know of the proceedings until late September 2021. 17. If I am wrong about that and the claimant did not know about the proceedings until September 2021 the claimant did not make an application for an extension of time to file a response or a reconsideration of the employment tribunal judgment until 7 December 2021. There is no explanation in the email setting out grounds for the application for reconsideration for the delay in making the application for a reconsideration. 18. The respondent has not provided a draft response to the claim. If the respondent’s application for reconsideration was granted a rule 21 judgment would be made in any event because there is no response or application to file a response late accompanied by a draft of the response to be relied on. Case No: 3318823/2019 Page 5 of 5

[19]I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require the judgment of the employment tribunal to be varied or revoked, a reconsideration of the judgment is not in the interests of justice. In the circumstances I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The application for a reconsideration is refused.