Mr D Gibb v Peter Vardy Ltd; 4100467/2017
| Judgment Date | 14 August 2017 |
| Published date | 16 October 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: S/4100467/2017
Held in Glasgow on 28 July 2017 (Expenses Hearing) 5
Employment Judge: Ian McPherson (in chambers)
10 Mr David Gibb Claimant
Written Representations by:
Mr Iain Burke –
Solicitor
15
Peter Vardy Limited Respondents
Written Representations by:
Ms Kirsty Swan – 20 Solicitor
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 25
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the respondents’ opposed
application for an Expenses Order or Wasted Costs Order against the claimant is
refused.
REASONS 30
Introduction
1. This case called before me, as an Employment Judge sitting alone, at the
Glasgow Tribunal office, on Friday, 28 July 2017 at 10.00am, for an
Expenses Hearing, as intimated to both parties’ representatives under cover 35
of a letter from the Edinburgh Tribunal office dated 17 July 2017, referring to
it as a Costs Hearing. As this matter was to be dealt with by way of written
submissions, rather than personal attendance by parties’ representatives, it
was transferred to the Glasgow Tribunal office, and allocated to me, on
S/4100467/2017
Page
2
account of the lack of judicial resource at the Edinburgh Tribunal on the
allocated Hearing date.
Claim and Response
2. By ET1 claim form, presented on the claimant’s behalf, on 21 March 2017, by
his Solicitor, Mr Iain Burke, from Messrs Bannerman Burke Taits, Solicitors, 5
Selkirk, the claimant complained that he was owed notice pay, holiday pay,
and other payment arising from the termination of his employment with the
respondents on 4 November 2016.
3. His claim form was presented, following ACAS early conciliation, between 25
January 2017 and 22 February 2017. In his ET1 claim form, the claimant 10
stated that, in the event that his claim was to be successful before the
Tribunal, he sought an award of compensation only and he quantified that as
a total claim for £9,945.20, inclusive of the Tribunal lodging fee of £160.
4. The claimant’s ET1 form was accepted by the Employment Tribunal on 23
March 2017, and Notice of Claim and Notice of Final Hearing was served on 1 5
the respondents, on that date, requiring them to lodge an ET3 response by
20 April 2017 at latest, and advising that a Final Hearing had been set for
Wednesday, 31 May, 2017, with a one hour allocation to hear the evidence
and decide the claim, including any preliminary issues.
5. On 7 April 2017, the Legal Department at Motor Industry Legal Services, 20
lodged an ET3 response, on behalf of the respondents, defending the claim.
It was submitted by Ms Kirsty Swan, Solicitor with MILS Solicitors, trading as
Motor Industry Legal Services, London.
6. The claim brought against the respondents was defended, and detailed
grounds of resistance were set forth in a separate, three page paper apart, 25
asserting that there had been no unlawful deduction of salary as the
respondents were entitled to make a deduction from the claimant’s final
salary, due to having made a genuine overpayment of salary, which failing, if
not correct, then alternatively, or additionally, averring that the respondents
had a contractual right to deduct sums from the claimant’s final salary. 30
To continue reading
Request your trial