Mr L A Hamill v Brown and Mason Ltd: 4102899/2019
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant`s complaints of:-(a) unfair dismissal and the entitlement to a basic and compensatory award;(b) failure to pay notice pay; and(c) failure to pay accrued holiday entitlement and(d) an entitlement to an award for loss of employment rights succeed and the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a hearing to be fixed.REASONS
[1]A copy of the claim form setting out the claimant`s complaints was sent to the respondent on 14 March 2019. 16B(Scot) Rule 21 judgment on liability, remedy to be determined at a hearing[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.[3]The Employment Judge decided that she could not properly determine remedy in respect of the claimant’s complaint of:-(a) unfair dismissal and the amounts to be awarded in relation to a basic award and a compensatory award;(b) failure to pay notice pay and(c) failure to pay accrued holiday entitlement and(d) entitlement to an award for loss of employment rights and will be determined by an Employment Judge at a hearing. RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that on reconsideration under rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the Judgment dated 16 April 2019 and sent to the parties on 17 April 2019 is revoked on the basis of an application made for reconsideration.[1]In this case, a default (Rule 21) Judgment was issued as no response had been submitted when the file was referred to me. When the Judgment was issued, the respondent was informed they had the right to apply for a reconsideration and to do so within 14 days of the date of the letter being 17 April 2019.[2]In a letter of 23 April 2019, they enclosed a copy of an agreement reached through ACAS with the claimant and sought a reconsideration. It is apparent from the terms of the ACAS agreement that a settlement was reached between the parties with the terms being agreed by the claimant’s representative on 26 March and for the respondent on 1 April 2019.[3]It is unclear to me why ACAS had not been in touch with HMCTS to inform it of the settlement. E.T. Z4 (WR)[4]However given a settlement had been agreed and concluded through ACAS, there was no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to proceed to issue a default Judgment on 16 April 2019.[5]For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not before me on 16 April 2019 when the decision was reached and had it been, I would not have reached a decision that it was appropriate to issue a default Judgment.