Jersey Judgment

Mr H Baptista v Mr J Lemos

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The tribunal accepted the parties' agreement and ordered payment of the net balance after setting off the sums owed by each side, including compensation for unfair dismissal, unpaid holidays, wages, and the Applicant's debt to the Respondent.

Court disposition

Application determined by agreed orders; Respondent ordered to pay net balance to Applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant was unfairly dismissed; compensation payable by Respondent: £9,880.00.
  • Respondent owes Applicant £300.00 in respect of unpaid holidays.
  • Respondent owes Applicant £1,400.00 in respect of wages for April 2011.
  • Applicant owes Respondent £10,580.00 in respect of a debt due to the Respondent.
  • Respondent shall pay Applicant £1,000.00 within 7 days of the date of the order.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr H Baptista

Applicant Counsel: self-represented

Mr J Lemos

Respondent Counsel: Mr Rui Tremonceiro

Amounts and remedies

  • Unfair Dismissal Compensation: GBP 9,880
  • Unpaid Holidays: GBP 300
  • Wages for April 2011: GBP 1,400
  • Debt Due to Respondent: GBP 10,580
  • Net Payment Ordered: GBP 1,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Employment Tribunal Claim / Final Decision/order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicant had offered to settle on payment of a certain sum and agreed to the proposed orders.
Respondent
The Respondent, represented by counsel, agreed to the proposed orders and the set-off of mutual sums.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Tribunal decision

    Where parties agree the terms of an order, the tribunal may make the agreed orders if satisfied both parties understand them.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The tribunal accepted the parties' agreement and ordered payment of the net balance after setting off the sums owed by each side, including compensation for unfair dismissal, unpaid holidays, wages, and the Applicant's debt to the Respondent.

Obiter and limits

  • The tribunal noted that the award is subject to the right of appeal to the Royal Court as set out in the law.
  • Each party, if applicable, is responsible for establishing their liabilities regarding Social Security and Income Tax payments.

Court disposition

Application determined by agreed orders; Respondent ordered to pay net balance to Applicant.

  • Applicant was unfairly dismissed; compensation payable by Respondent: £9,880.00.
  • Respondent owes Applicant £300.00 in respect of unpaid holidays.
  • Respondent owes Applicant £1,400.00 in respect of wages for April 2011.
  • Applicant owes Respondent £10,580.00 in respect of a debt due to the Respondent.
  • Respondent shall pay Applicant £1,000.00 within 7 days of the date of the order.

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

Judgment

Summary – Unfair dismissal | Payment of wages | Minimum rest periods and annual leave 76/2011 Jersey Employment Tribunal 9 December 2011 Before : Chairman Mr David Le Quesne Panel Members Mr Stewart Mourant and Mr John Noel Between Mr H Baptista Applicant And Mr J Lemos Respondent For the Applicant: The Applicant represented himself For the Respondent: Mr Rui Tremonceiro Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 Notification of the tribunal’s decision This award,(subject to the right of appeal to the Royal Court as set out in the law) is legally binding and is the final decision of the tribunal. Each party, if applicable, is responsible for establishing their liabilities with regard to Social Security and Income Tax payments the Chairman:

THE FACTS 1. At the beginning of the hearing Mr Tremoceiro informed us that the Applicant had offered to settle on payment to him of a certain sum, and we were shown a letter supporting this. We then questioned the parties, and it appeared that they might in fact be in agreement, so we adjourned so that they could have a discussion. The parties then informed us that they had agreed orders for us to make. We were easily satisfied that the Respondent understood the orders which were being sought, as he was legally represented. We went through the proposed orders with the Applicant, in detail, and he confirmed to us directly and through his interpreter that he was in agreement with each one, so we were also satisfied that he understood the orders.

2. The orders which we make on the application of both parties are as follows: (i) The Applicant was unfairly dismissed and the compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant for unfair dismissal is £9,880.00. (ii) The Respondent owes to the Applicant £300.00 in respect of unpaid holidays. (iii) The Respondent owes to the Applicant £1,400.00 in respect of wages for April 2011. Thus the total amount which we find that the Respondent must pay to the Applicant is £11,580.00. (iv) The Applicant owes to the Respondent £10,580.00 in respect of a debt due to the Respondent. (v) Both parties agree that our order should be for the payment of the balance of these sums. (vi) We therefore order that the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the difference between £11,580.00 and £10,580.00 = £1,000.00 and we order that the sum of £1,000.00 shall be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant within 7 days of the date of this order.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Employment (Jersey) Law 2003

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.