Ms A Tsiliepi and Mr G Kazakos v GTA Food Services Ltd: 1404070/ 2022 and 1404074/ 2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 August 2023 |
| Date | 04 August 2023 |
| Citation | 1404070/ 2022 and 1404074/ 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 03 October 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case No: 1404070/ 2022
1404074/ 2022
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: Ms A Tsiliepi
Mr G Kazakos
Respondent: GTA Food Services Ltd
UPON APPLICATION of the Claimant made by letter dated 13th June 2023 to
reconsider the judgment on the Claimants’ application for a preparation time order
dated 19th April 2023 sent to the parties on 12th June 2023 under rule 72 of the
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
JUDGMENT
1. The application is allowed only to the extent that the preparation time order
applications for both Mr Kazakos and Ms Tsiliepi are refused. I refuse to
vary the decision not to award a preparation time order in this case and that
decision applies to both Mr Kazakos and Ms Tsiliepi.
REASONS
1. On 16th March 2023 I entered a judgment in default for Mr Kazakos
(1404070/22) under rule 21 against the Respondent for the total sum of £2,
235.30. On 16th March 2023 I entered a judgment in default for Ms Tsiliepi
(1404074/22) for £212.
2. On 19th April 2023 Mr Dickson applied for a preparation time order in respect
of both Claimants in the sum of £1, 492.40. I issued a judgment which was
sent to the parties on 12th June 2023 rejecting the application and providing
reasons. By error I omitted Mr Kazakos from inclusion in that judgment. I
relied on the authority of Health Development Agency v Parish [2004]
IRLR 550 that conduct from the date of filing only can be considered to
found any application for costs on the basis of conducting the proceedings
‘vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably’ under rule
76. As the Respondent had not presented a response and therefore
‘conducted’ the proceedings a costs order could not be made on this basis.
Further I determined that it could not be said that the response was
misconceived as there was no response.
To continue reading
Request your trial