Mr U Hussain v Ignite Gas Ltd: 2410947/2021
| Judgment Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
| Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Citation | 2410947/2021 |
| Published date | 11 May 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2410947/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr U Hussain
Respondent:
Ignite Gas Limited
Heard at:
Liverpool (remotely, by CVP)
On: 13 January 2022 and 3
and 17 March 2022 (in
chambers)
Before:
Employment Judge McCarthy
(sitting alone)
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Ms Ince (Lay Representative)
Respondent: Ms Kaur (Solicitor)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that:
1. The claimant’s application to amend his claim by adding two further
complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages is granted.
2. The claimant’s application to strike out the response on the grounds of the
respondent’s failure to comply with case management orders is refused.
3. The respondent has not made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s
wages. The three claims are dismissed.
4. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim for
automatic unfair dismissal. This claim is dismissed.
REASONS
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2410947/2021
2
Introduction
1. By a claim form presented on 7 September 2021 (having entered early
conciliation and received a certificate against the respondent dated 12 August 2021),
the claimant complained of unauthorised deductions from his wages and automatic
unfair dismissal for alleging the respondent had infringed a statutory right.
2. By a response form dated 2 November 2021 the respondent resisted the
complaint. It says that it had not made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s
wages, and it had not dismissed the claimant and section 104(1(b) Employment
Rights Act 1996 (ERA) was not engaged.
Preliminary Issues
3. At the beginning of the hearing, before I heard any evidence, I had to deal
with two preliminary issues.
Application to Amend
4. Ms Ince applied to amend the claimant’s claim to add two further complaints
of unauthorised deductions from wages. The first amendment related to a bus lane
fine of £60 (which the claimant said should have been a deduction for £30). The
second amendment related to a deduction of £194.34 for missing company van
stock. Ms Ince had believed, until the day of the hearing, that both these complaints
had been included in the ET1 form, which she had completed online. The claimant’s
schedule of loss, provided to the respondent in November 2021, had included these
two further complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages alongside the
unauthorised deduction claim for salary arrears. The respondent opposed the
application on the basis that there was no justified reason for presenting these
claims out of time and that the respondent had not had time to consider these new
heads of clam.
5. Whether to allow an amendment is a matter for discretion and a balancing
exercise. In deciding whether to grant the application to amend, I applied the
principles in Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836 EAT and
Abercrombie & Ors v Aga Rangemaster Limited [2014] ICR 209 CA. I considered
all the relevant circumstances of the case, balancing the injustice and hardship of
allowing the amendment against the injustice and hardship of refusing it. I
concluded, for the reasons given at the hearing, that the amendment should be
granted.
6. In my view the balance of injustice and hardship fell on the claimant should
the amendment not be allowed. The respondent was unlikely to suffer significant
prejudice should the amendment be granted. I believe the respondent had been
alerted to these two potential further complaints by their inclusion in the claimant’s
schedule of loss. The agreed bundle, prepared by the respondent, included
documents relating to these additional complaints and the respondent witness, Mr
Hallsworth had also made references to them in his witness statement. Given the
contents of the bundle and respondent’s witness statement I believed the respondent
was in a position to defend these additional complaints but allowed Ms Kaur to ask
To continue reading
Request your trial