Ms H Daws v Aqualisa Products Ltd: 6019180/2024
JUDGMENT
RULE 22 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE RULES 2024 Upon the failure of the respondent to present a response to the claim in time, and upon the Employment Judge determining that liability and remedy in the claim can be determined as follows:-[1]The claimant was unfairly dismissed on 13 September 2024.[2]The respondent must pay the claimant the following sums in compensation:- 2.1. Basic award: £1,724.62. 2.2. Compensatory award – 2.2.1. Losses to new employment (net sum for 3 weeks) - £641.00; 2.2.2. On-going wages shortfall to today’s date (20.5 weeks at £59.82) - £1,226.31; 2.2.3. Future losses to anniversary of dismissal (29 weeks at £59.82) - £1,734.78 2.2.4. Total compensatory award: £3,602.09[3]The respondent must pay the claimant the sum of £700 in respect of her lost statutory rights.[4]The claimant’s request for compensation for mental anguish and life changing disruption is refused.[5]The total which the respondent must pay to the claimant, within 14 days of this judgment, is £6.026.71.[6]The hearing listed for 17 and 18 November 2025 is cancelled. 1 of 3REASONS
[1]This matter came before me today on the papers. The respondent failed to file a response in time and so the Tribunal followed its Rule 22 procedures. The claimant submitted information about the quantum of her claim, her earnings, and details of her new role on 7 February 2025. That letter set out that she was not owed any wages or holiday pay from the respondent at the end of her employment. The claim to be considered is unfair dismissal only.[2]The claim form sets out factual claims which, when found, amount to unfair dismissal. There is no response to counter those allegations. In my judgment, it is appropriate to enter judgment in favour of the claimant on her only claim in this matter, unfair dismissal.[3]There was a hearing listed for 17 & 18 November 2025. One option open to me was to leave remedy to be determined at that date. In my view, it is not desirable to do that. It is better to determine remedy today on the information available because:- 3.1. The claimant is entitled only to a basic and compensatory award for this type of claim; 3.2. The basic award is calculable from the bare information on the ET1; 3.3. The compensatory award calculation is based on her earnings in employment and the information given on 7 February 2025. Her ET1 makes submissions about the remedy requested; 3.4. There has been no response to the claim and so no requirement to hear from the respondent where remedy is determined on the papers; and 3.5. Any judgment from the hearing in November 2025 would not fall due to be paid to the claimant until December 2025 and this is a redundancy claim, and so there is significant risk that the passage of that time might mean the respondent is unable to pay the judgment sum ordered.[4]The claimant’s basic award is as set out above.[5]I accept the claimant’s evidence about her wages at the respondent. She obtained new employment on 1 October 2024 and is paid £59.82 per week less than when in the respondent’s employment.[6]The compensatory award is a sum which I consider just and equitable in the circumstances. It is plainly just and equitable to compensate the claimant for losses to her wages arising from unfair dismissal. I award the whole of her respondent wages for the short period of her unemployment.[7]The claimant suffers a shortfall to her wages. It is just and equitable for there to be compensation to reflect that loss. I award all of that shortfall to today’s date.[8]In my judgment, it is just and equitable for the claimant to be compensated for a period into the future. The claimant requests a whole year’s salary for compensation. I consider that that would not be a just and equitable award because the claimant has been able to mitigate losses, as she should, through the new employment. Instead, I consider the respondent should continue to compensate the claimant for 2 of 3 that shortfall until the anniversary of her unfair dismissal. This balances the compensation which the claimant should receive against the general principle that an employer should not compensate for a period which is excessive. The employment has, after all, ended.[9]The claimant lost statutory rights as a result of her unfair dismissal, and is now exposed to being unfairly dismissed without ability to recourse until her second anniversary at her new employer. I have made an award within the usual range of amounts for this loss.[10]The claimant requested compensation for ‘mental anguish’ and ‘life changing disruption’. Although I appreciate that unfair dismissal will have had those effects, these are not compensation heads which are available to a claimant for unfair dismissal.[11]Generally, I recognise that the claimant may be disappointed with this total given that she requested a total of £14,900. In my judgment, it would not be just and equitable to have awarded the claimant more than I have.[12]The sum is due within 14 days of the sending of this judgment. Approved by :