Mr L Stobie v Dem-Master Demolition Ltd: 4102747/2019
JUDGMENT
No response has been presented to this claim and an Employment Judge has decided to issue the following judgment on the available material under rule 21:[1]The claimant was unlawfully dismissed and the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant a monetary award of £9,738.37.[2]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £2885.02.REASONS
[1]In this case, form ET3 was not submitted by the respondents in time.[2]In those circumstances, Judgment was issued in terms of Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. That Judgment was dated and sent to parties on 25 June 2019.[3]The respondents subsequently submitted form ET3. There was no opportunity given to the claimant to oppose the application accompanying it for extension of time for presentation of the response. Form ET3 was accepted, notwithstanding that. That ought not to have occurred.[4]In a note dated 10 September 2019 and sent to parties on 12 September 2019 an Employment Judge revoked the decision to grant an extension and to receive form ET3. E.T. Z4 (WR)[5]Very shortly after that the claim was settled. It was withdrawn. Judgment dismissing the claim following upon withdrawal was then issued. That judgment was dated 14 October 2019 and issued on 30 October 2019.[6]The Judgment in terms of Rule 21 remained however. The respondents sought that it be reconsidered and revoked. The claimant confirmed he had no objection to this.[7]Having considered the foregoing procedure and the ultimate conclusion in the case, namely settlement and agreement by the claimant that the claim be withdrawn and subsequently dismissed, it seems to me appropriate that the following step be taken to reflect the position in the case: –• The Judgment in terms of Rule 21 dated and sent to parties on 25 June 2019 is reconsidered and upon reconsideration is revoked.[8]For the avoidance of doubt, the Judgment in terms of Rule 52 remains in place. The claim was withdrawn and was dismissed upon withdrawal.