Mr I Manuell v Braveheart Industries: 4100211/2020
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant`s complaints of unfair dismissal succeeds. The remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a hearing on a date to be hereafter assigned by the Tribunal.REASONS
[1]A copy of the claim form setting out the claimant`s complaints was sent to the respondent on 21 January 2020.[2]In accordance with the terms of Rule 16 of the Rules to be found in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 the respondent was required to enter a response within twenty eight days of the date on which a copy of the claim was sent to it but failed to do so, by 18 February 2020, or at all.[3]The Employment Judge decided that on the available material a determination could properly be made without a hearing as to the liability of the respondent for the claim but not in respect of the remedy.[4]The remedy to which the claimant is entitled for the complaint of unfair dismissal will be determined by an Employment Judge at a hearing. Employment Judge: Ian McPherson Date of Judgement: 03 March 2020 Entered in register: 06 March 2020 And copied to parties EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100211/2020 Held in Chambers at Glasgow on 17 March 2020 (Reconsideration Hearing) Employment Judge: Ian McPherson Mr Iain Manuell Claimant Braveheart Industries Respondents RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 The judgment of the Employment Tribunal, made in chambers, acting under its powers in terms of Rules 20, 29 and Rules 70 to 73, of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, following the respondents’ application for reconsideration dated 12 March 2020, and without the need for a Hearing, is as follows:(1) The respondents’ application, per Ms Paula McGlynn, Board member, for reconsideration and set aside of the Default Judgment made against them and dated 3 March 2020, and sent to parties by the Tribunal on 6 March 2020, is granted, notwithstanding the objection intimated by the claimant on 12 March 2020, it being in the interests of justice to do so, where it is now clear that the 25 ET1 claim form was not properly served upon the respondents, when Notice of Claim as sent by the Tribunal on 21 January 2020 was not sent to the respondents’ registered office address shown on the ACAS early Conciliation Certificate issued on 22 December 2019, and so they did not have an opportunity to respond, and they now seek to defend the claim, it having been brought to their attention by ACAS.(2) Accordingly, on reconsideration in terms of Rule 70, the Rule 21 Default Judgment issued in the claimant’s favour, dated 3 March 2020, is revoked. The finding that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by 5 the respondents, on 1 November 2019, is likewise revoked, and the Remedy Hearing assigned by the Tribunal, by Notice of Remedy Hearing dated 10 March 2020, fixing Monday, 1 June 2020, at 10.00am, for a 2 hour Remedy Hearing, is varied, and while that Hearing date is retained, the Remedy Hearing is converted into a Final[10]Hearing for full disposal, including remedy if appropriate, and the length of that Hearing varied to one day. (3) Further, and in any event, the Tribunal, acting on its own initiative, under Rule 73, having treated that reconsideration application as an application by the respondents for an extension of time under Rule 20 for presenting a response 15 to the claim, and it being in the interests of justice to grant such an extension of time, the Tribunal grants the respondents an extension of time to present their ET3 response, and orders them to do so within no more than 28 days from service of this Judgment upon both parties by the Tribunal. Notice of Claim is issued under separate cover (4) Standard case management orders, under Rule 29, are issued under separate cover, alongside this Reconsideration Judgment, for the efficient and effective conduct of that Final Hearing.