Mr H Baptista v Mr J Lemos
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Employment Tribunal Claim / Final Decision/order
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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-representedMr J Lemos
Respondent Counsel: Mr Rui TremonceiroAmounts 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
Posture
Employment Tribunal Claim / Final Decision/order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Applicant was unfairly dismissed.
- 02
Whether the Respondent owed unpaid holidays and wages for April 2011.
- 03
Whether the parties' agreed set-off should be reflected in the tribunal's order.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
Court record
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.
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.