Connor Kearney v Shinzo (Jersey) Limited
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Employment and Discrimination Tribunal Claim / Remedies Hearing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the Respondent failed to file a timely response, it could not dispute the payslip claim. At the remedies hearing, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the Claimant earned £192 per day and awarded 7 days' pay, totalling £1,344.
Court disposition
Claim allowed in part; monetary award made.
Orders
- The Claimant is awarded £1,344.
- The Respondent's representative is to notify the Tribunal Registrar as soon as a liquidator is appointed, so the Claimant can be notified immediately.
02
Material facts
Parties
CONNOR KEARNEY
Claimant Counsel: In personSHINZO (JERSEY) LIMITED
Respondent Counsel: Mr Gavin RobertsAmounts and remedies
- Daily Rate: GBP 192
- Days Awarded: 7
- Award Amount: GBP 1,344
03
Procedural history
Posture
Employment and Discrimination Tribunal Claim / Remedies Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Respondent could dispute the Claimant's claim that he had not received payslips at the proper time.
- 02
What remedy should be awarded for the payslip claim.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Claimant maintained that he had not received payslips at the proper time and sought a remedy.
- Respondent
- The Respondent had not filed a timely response and could not dispute the claim, but participated in the remedies hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Tribunal judgment
Where a respondent fails to meet the deadline for filing a response, it cannot be heard to dispute the claim, though it may participate in the remedies hearing.
- 02
Tribunal judgment
The Tribunal referred to the published guideline on the principles applicable to payslip claims.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the Respondent failed to file a timely response, it could not dispute the payslip claim. At the remedies hearing, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the Claimant earned £192 per day and awarded 7 days' pay, totalling £1,344.
Obiter and limits
- The Respondent indicated it was seeking liquidation, and its representative undertook to notify the Tribunal Registrar if a liquidator was appointed so the Claimant could be notified immediately.
Court disposition
Claim allowed in part; monetary award made.
- The Claimant is awarded £1,344.
- The Respondent's representative is to notify the Tribunal Registrar as soon as a liquidator is appointed, so the Claimant can be notified immediately.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER:
BETWEEN
CONNOR KEARNEY
CLAIMANT AND SHINZO (JERSEY) LIMITED
RESPONDENT
TRIBUNAL
JUDGMENT Reference: [2020] TRE 64 Hearing Date: 17 June 2022 Before: Advocate C E Whelan, Deputy Chairman Appearance: Claimant In person Respondent: Mr Gavin Roberts Judgment of the Tribunal The Respondent had not met the deadline for the filing of a response to the claim that the Claimant had not received payslips at the proper time; accordingly the Respondent could not be heard to dispute the claim but was entitled to participate in the remedies hearing, and did so. These are the orders resulting from that hearing, which took place on 17 June 2022. There was a brief discussion about the facts and about the principles on which the Tribunal approaches payslip claims, as set out in the published guideline. I established from the parties that the Claimant earned £192 per day during his employment with the Respondent. Taking that as the daily rate, and taking account of the facts, I awarded the Claimant 7 days’ pay, thus making an award of £1,344. Noting that the Respondent is seeking liquidation, I received an undertaking from Mr Roberts on behalf of the Respondent that he would notify the Registrar of the Tribunal as soon as a liquidator was appointed, so that the Registrar could notify the Claimant of that appointment immediately. Orders accordingly. Advocate C E Whelan, Deputy Chair Dated: 17 June 2022
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.