Mr A Larkin v Shaun Wright: 2404139/2017
Employment Tribunal
Published on 06 February 2019, 12:26
- Summary
- Employment Tribunal decision.
- categories
-
unlawful-deduction-from-wages
- country
- england-and-wales
- decision date
- 2019-01-15
Official Documents
-
Mr A Larkin v Shaun Wright: 2404139/2017 - Reconsideration
Change History
-
First published.
Full Decision Text
Raw text extracted from the official documents.
Case No. 2404139/2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr A Larkin
Respondent:
Shaun Wright
HELD AT:
Liverpool ON: 14 January 2019
BEFORE: Employment Judge Shotter
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant:
Respondent:
Not in attendance
Not in attendance
JUDGMENT ON RECONSIDERATION
The judgment of the Tribunal:
1. The claimant’s application for a reconsideration of the judgment promulgated
22 August 2018 has no reasonable prospect of success and is dismissed.
2. The respondent’s application for a reconsideration of the judgment
promulgated 22 August 2018 has no reasonable prospect of success and is
dismissed.
REASONS
1. This is a preliminary hearing to deal with an application for a reconsideration
made by both parties of the judgment in default promulgated on 22 August
2018. The respondent’s application was received on 5 September 2018 and a
number of allegations were made against the claimant, including fraud, that
could have a bearing on remedy. The respondent had not filed an ET3 and
Case No. 2404139/2017
2
therefore it was found liable for unlawful deduction of wages and failing to
provide a statement and terms of conditions of employment in accordance
with S.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. The claimant sought a reconsideration of the damages ordered in respect of
the unlawful deduction of wages, which made little sense given the contents
of the ET1 and breakkdown. Clarification was sought by the claimant on 11
October 2018, who then confirmed in an email sent 17 October 2018 that the
amount should in fact have been less than that ordered.
3. A reconsideration hearing was set down to resolve the differences and
provide the parties with the opportunity to clarify their position and make
representations. They have not taken up that opportunity, and neither
contacted the Tribunal to inform it of the position and their inability to attend.
The Tribunal has attempted to make contact, unsuccessfully in respect of the
respondent and was told by the claimant’s mother that he was in bed ill.
4. Under rule 70 schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure a
Tribunal may reconsider any Judgment where it is necessary in the interests
of justice to do so. In this case the Tribunal does not find that it is in the
interests of justice to reconsider the judgment promulgated 22 August 2018 in
accordance with the claimant’s and respondent’s application as set out above.
The Tribunal’s discretion must be exercised judicially and with regard not just
to the interests of the parties seeking the reconsideration, but also to the other
parties, and the requirement for finality to the litigation and giving effect to the
overriding objective the applications have no reasonable prospects of success
and are dismissed.
______________________________
15.1.19 Employment Judge Shotter
RESERVED JUDGMENT AND REASONS SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
02 February 2019
…………………………………………………….
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Related Parties
Search the database for other cases involving these individuals or companies.