Claimant v Wejdi Moussa t/a The Mailcoach
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent did not seek reconsideration of the unfair dismissal judgment and the tribunal expressly stated that this part of the August 2024 judgment was not set aside and remains in force.
The August 2024 judgment on notice pay was set aside following the respondent's successful reconsideration application, meaning the claim will now be heard on its merits at a future hearing.
The August 2024 judgment on holiday pay was set aside following the respondent's successful reconsideration application, meaning the claim will now be heard on its merits at a future hearing.
The August 2024 judgment on claims under the Equality Act 2010 was set aside following the respondent's successful reconsideration application. The specific protected characteristic(s) are not identified in this reconsideration judgment.
Facts
The claimant filed her claim in August 2023. The respondent instructed his accountant to file an ET3 response, but it was not received by the tribunal. A default judgment hearing proceeded in the respondent's absence on 5 August 2024, with judgment in the claimant's favour. The respondent had also instructed Croner to represent him at that hearing, but they failed to attend. The respondent applied for reconsideration on 19 August 2024, explaining that he had taken steps to defend the claim but his agents had let him down through no fault of his own.
Decision
The tribunal granted the respondent's application for reconsideration and set aside the August 2024 judgment to the extent it related to notice pay, holiday pay and Equality Act claims. The tribunal also extended time under Rule 20 to allow the ET3 to be accepted. The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine explanation for non-compliance, that he had a statable defence on the merits, and that the balance of prejudice favoured allowing him to defend the claims.
Practical note
A respondent who takes reasonable steps to defend a claim but whose agents fail to act should not be denied the opportunity to present their defence, particularly where they have an arguable case on the merits and acted promptly once aware of the problem.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4105211/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2024
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No