Red Ninja Ltd v Succu (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –- Appearance/response) [2019] UKEAT 0035_19_2805 (28 May 2019)

Red Ninja Ltd v Succu (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –- Appearance/response) [2019] UKEAT 0035_19_2805 (28 May 2019)

The Tribunal was correct to reject the late response as no application for extension of time was made, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 18(1). The refusal to postpone the hearing was procedurally unfair in the circumstances, as the respondent was not notified of the decision until the working day before the hearing, depriving them of a fair opportunity to participate. The Tribunal erred in making an additional award for notice pay, as this was not specifically claimed or notified to the respondent, and the basis for it was unclear.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0035_19_2805
Parties
Appellant/respondent Below: Lee Omar; Respondent/appellant Below (claimant): Riccardo Succu
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of rejection of late response; appeal allowed in part regarding refusal to postpone and additional notice pay award.
Legal Topics
Unpaid Wages, Holiday Pay, Breach of Contract, Notice Pay, Late Response, Postponement of Hearing, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Civil Procedure Unpaid Wages Holiday Pay Breach of Contract Notice Pay Late Response Postponement of Hearing +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Omar

Appellant/respondent Below

Riccardo Succu

Respondent/appellant Below (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in rejecting the respondent's late response without an application for extension of time
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to postpone the hearing was procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in making an additional award for notice pay not specifically claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was correct to reject the late response as no application for extension of time was made, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 18(1). The refusal to postpone the hearing was procedurally unfair in the circumstances, as the respondent was not notified of the decision until the working day before the hearing, depriving them of a fair opportunity to participate. The Tribunal erred in making an additional award for notice pay, as this was not specifically claimed or notified to the respondent, and the basis for it was unclear.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of rejection of late response; appeal allowed in part regarding refusal to postpone and additional notice pay award.

Orders

  • The Employment Tribunal's rejection of the late response is upheld.
  • The refusal to postpone the hearing is found to be procedurally unfair but does not affect the awards for wages and holiday pay.