Mr B Thompson v Robert Agnew and Zac Robinson: 3331390/2018
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application for reconsideration of the Judgment dated 18 December 2018 is rejected under Rule 72.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[1]The claimant has judgment for unlawful deductions from wages against the second named respondent in the sum of £1,328.09 and has had that judgment since 17 October 2018 (sent to the parties on 7 November 2018).[2]That judgment also dismissed the remaining claims brought by the claimant against the second respondent as the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them.[3]Those remaining claims were for repayment of an agreed settlement fee paid to ‘ID Medical’. ID Medical are not a respondent to the claimant’s complaint in the Employment Tribunal and in any event this relates to previous High Court proceedings in respect of which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.[4]The claimant states that the sum was paid by him “as a result of various claims made by Mr Agnew (the first respondent), by ID Medical”. Such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal.[5]The claimant also sought, in his originating claim, “£5,000 compensation for the stress this has caused me and my family over the last five months and time spent defending my case without a solicitor”. That also relates to 1 11.6C Judgment – Reconsideration refused – claimant – rule 72 Case Number: 3331390/2018 the previous High Court actions and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it.[6]The claimant’s only specified claim was in the sum of £1,328.09 for unpaid salary. He has judgment against the second respondent in that sum and accordingly the claimant’s remaining claims, including those against the first respondent, were properly dismissed.