Mr CO Christian v Cordant Cleaning Ltd: 3329377/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims of race and age discrimination and of victimisation are dismissed on withdrawal.[2]The Respondent’s application for costs arising from these claims is dismissed. ___________________________________ Employment Judge Foxwell Dated: 23 May 2018[1]The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is well founded which means his claim succeeds.[2]The Claimant’s complaints of breach of contract and deductions in respect of unpaid annual leave are also well founded which means that these claims succeed.[3]The case will be listed for a further remedy hearing in due course when the amounts to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in respect of his successful claims will be determined. _____________________________ Employment Judge Johnson Date: 31 December 2019 Sent to the parties on: ....................... ............................................................ For the Tribunal Office Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case Number: 3329377/2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr C O Christian v CLC Realisations Limited (in administration) Heard at: Cambridge (by Cloud Video Platform (‘CVP’)) On: 28 May 2021 Before: Employment Judge Johnson Appearances For the Claimant: Mr A Otchie (counsel) For the Respondent: administrator did not attend REMEDY HEARING JUDGMENT 1. The respondent’s administrator has given consent by letter dated 9 July 2020 that the stay in these proceedings can be lifted. 2. The respondent shall pay to the claimant compensation for his complaints of unfair dismissal, unlawful dismissal and unpaid annual leave in the sum of £28,026.50 (Twenty-Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty-Six Pounds Fifty Pence) and calculated as follows: Basic Award[1]Six completed years of service multiplied by £489 gross weekly pay = £2934.00 Subtotal/Total Subtotal for Basic Award £2934.00 Compensatory Award Past/Future Loss of Earnings[2]One year loss of net earnings from effective date of termination on 10 August 2017 to 10 August 2018 (£329 x 52 weeks) = £17108.00[3]Uplift of 25% in accordance with section 124A Employment Rights Act 1996 = £4277.00 Case Number: 3329377/2017 2 Subtotal (Past/Future Loss of Earnings) = (£17108 + £4277.00) = £21,385.00 Other Losses[4]Loss of statutory rights = £500.00[5]Loss of pension contributions (£75 per month x[12]= £900.00 6. Expenses looking for work = £250.00 7. Uplift of 25% in accordance with section 124A Employment Rights Act 1996 ((500+900+250)x25% = £412.50 Subtotal (other losses) = (£500+£900+£250+£412.50) = £2062.50 Subtotal for compensatory award (£21,385.00 +£2062.50) £23,447.50 Wrongful dismissal 1. 3 months notice pay (£329 x 12 weeks) = £3,948.00 Note: the compensatory award already covers the period applicable to wrongful dismissal claim. Therefore, this figure cannot be added to remedy figure and is nil for the purposes of the remedy calculation. Subtotal for wrongful dismissal £Nil Unpaid annual leave entitlement (holiday pay) 1. 5 weeks net pay (5 x 329.00) = £1,645.00 Subtotal for unpaid annual leave award £1,645.00 Grand total £28,026.50 3. For the purposes of regulation 4 of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996: Prescribed Element: £21,385.00 Prescribed Period: 10 August 2017 to 11 August 2018 Total monetary award: £28,026.50 Award over the Prescribed Element: £6,641.50 _____________________________ Employment Judge Johnson Date: …29 May 2021…………… Case Number: 3329377/2017 3 Sent to the parties on: 20 July 21 For the Tribunal Office Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case Number: 3329377/2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent CLC Realisation Limited - adminsitrationREASONS
[1]The relevant part of Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 provides that: ’76-(1) A Tribunal may make a costs order or a preparation time order, and shall consider whether to do so, where it considers that –(a) A party (or that party’s representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either bringing of the proceedings (or part) or the way that the proceedings (or part) have been conducted; or,(b) Any claim or response had no reasonable prospects of success;….’[2]An award of costs is not something that is routinely imposed in Employment Tribunal proceedings and the discretion afforded to an Employment Judge is subject to the application of Rules 76, being focused upon behaviour of parties and representatives in the proceedings that falls below the standard that one would reasonably expect in litigation of this nature. Parties are of course subject to the duty under Rule 2 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure and are expected to cooperate so as to Mr C O Christian v Case Number: 3329377/2017 2 further the overriding objective and assist the Tribunal in ensuring that cases are dealt with in the interests of justice.[3]This was a case where the respondent company unfortunately entered administration and the administrators had a duty to protect the creditors to the company by requiring the claimant to prove his case in the Tribunal. Although I appreciate it was frustrating for the claimant to have to prove his case at the liability and remedy hearings, I do not believe that the respondent or their representatives behaved in an unreasonable, disruptive, abusive or vexatious way. Their case was primarily based upon one of objection, but there was no attempt to pursue unnecessary arguments or lines of defence which were doomed to fail.[4]For these reasons, the claimant’s application for costs is unsuccessful and is dismissed.