THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 150/15
CLAIMANT: Robert George Bodill
RESPONDENT: Jyrobike Limited (In liquidation)
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
1. The relevant time limit for presenting a response has expired. The parties have agreed that the response is now to be deemed to be amended. As so amended, the response contains a statement that the respondent does not intend to resist these claims. I have decided to determine the following claims without a hearing. I determine as follows:
(A) The claimant's wages claim against the respondent is well-founded.
(B) The claimant's holiday pay claim against the respondent is well-founded.
(C) The claimant's notice claim against the respondent is well-founded.
(D) The claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the respondent is well-founded.
2. Any remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a remedies hearing, in due course.
Employment Judge: ____________________________________
Date decision entered in register and issued to the parties:
______________________________________
For Secretary
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 150/15
CLAIMANT: Robert George Bodill
RESPONDENT: Jyrobike Ltd (In Administration)
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT (REMEDIES)
(A) It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2,050 in respect of wages.
(B) It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £4,781 in respect of holiday pay.
(C) It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £11,688 in respect of notice pay.
(D) It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £76,600 in respect of unfair dismissal.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Ms Melanie Jones, Barrister-at-Law.
The respondent was represented by Mr Rory Moynagh of James Neill,
HNH Partners Ltd.
REASONS
1. On 25 August 2015, I issued a default judgement (liability only) against the respondent, whereby I determined that:
(A) The claimant's wages claim against the respondent was well-founded.
(B) The claimant's holiday pay claim against the respondent was well-founded.
(C) The claimant's notice pay claim against the respondent was well-founded.
(D) The claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the respondent was
well-founded.
This is my Decision in respect of remedies, pursuant to that default judgement.
2. I announced my Decision at the end of the hearing. At the same time, I gave oral reasons for that decision.
3. The claimant was present at this hearing. During the course of this hearing, some modifications were made to the amounts claimed by the claimant in these proceedings. In light of Ms Jones' responses to my queries (which she gave on the basis of instructions from her client), and because, as Mr Moynagh made clear, the respondent does not disagree with any of the amounts claimed, I made the awards which have been specified above.
4. Upon instructions from her client, Ms Jones told me that the claimant had not made any application for jobseeker's allowance at any material time. Accordingly, the Recoupment Regulations do not apply.
5. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 23 September 2015, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: