Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Miss L Campbell, filed a claim against Clearbox Premises Ltd for unauthorised wage deductions on 23 November 2019. The respondent failed to submit a timely response, leading to a default judgment of £844.14 on 16 April 2020. The respondent applied for reconsideration, citing confusion over case management orders and lack of communication, but the judge refused the application due to insufficient evidence. A Skype hearing was held on 16 June 2020, and the respondent was given until 30 June 2020 to provide proof of address changes and Experian subscription details. The judge confirmed the default judgment remains in effect without such evidence.
Issues
The main issue was whether the respondent had valid grounds to revoke or vary the default judgment made on 16 April 2020 for unauthorised deductions from wages. The respondent claimed confusion over the case management order and failure to receive communications, but the judge concluded there was insufficient evidence to support these claims. The judge confirmed the default judgment and set a deadline for the respondent to provide proof of address change, Experian membership, and its relevance to the case by 30 June 2020.
Holdings
The Employment Tribunal refused the respondent's application for reconsideration, confirming the default judgment made on 16 April 2020. The judge concluded there were no grounds to revoke or vary the judgment as the respondent failed to prove they did not receive the Claim Form. The respondent was given until 30 June 2020 to provide evidence of address changes, Experian membership, and its ability to flag Employment Tribunal default judgments to potentially request further reconsideration.
Remedies
The Employment Tribunal confirmed the default judgment issued on 16 April 2020, which awarded the claimant £844.14 for unauthorized wage deductions. The respondent's application for reconsideration was denied due to insufficient evidence that they did not receive the claim. They were given until 30 June 2020 to submit evidence for a possible further reconsideration.
Monetary Damages
844.14
Legal Principles
- The judge concluded that the respondent had not satisfied the burden of proof to show they did not receive the Claim Form. The respondent's claims of confusion and lack of communication were dismissed due to insufficient evidence, including no proof of address changes or reliance on Experian notifications.
- The court applied Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, which governs reconsideration applications. The judge emphasized the procedural requirement for the respondent to demonstrate that the default judgment should be revoked due to lack of evidence showing they did not receive the Claim Form.
Cited Statute
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Judge Name
Hughes
Passage Text
- I do not accept that I have shown actual bias or the appearance of bias – the respondent's application has failed because of lack of evidence.
- In the circumstances, I concluded that there were no grounds to revoke or vary the judgment because I could not be satisfied that the respondent had not received the Claim Form.