C Stewart and Others v The Silk Bureau Ltd (in voluntary liquidation): 1301686/2025 and Others C Stewart and Others v The Silk Bureau Ltd (in voluntary liquidation): 1301686/2025 and Others
REASONS
[6]The Claimants presented their claim form on 11 April 2025. The Respondent failed to present a valid response to the claim on time or at all and accordingly rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 applies. By an email of 23 May 2025, which was copied to the insolvency practitioners representing the Respondent and to which they have not objected, the Claimants’ solicitors confirmed the information set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the above Judgment. None of that information seems to be in dispute, neither does it seem to be in dispute that there was no compliance at all with the relevant requirements of sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA.[7]Susie Radin Ltd v GMB [1994] ICR 893 suggests a proper approach where, as here, there has been no consultation at all is to start with the maximum period of 90 days and reduce it only if there are mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction. No mitigating factors have been put forward by or on behalf of the Respondent. Accordingly, I have awarded 90 days.[8]I note that although the Secretary of State has been given notice of this claim and has filed a (generic) response, they are not, technically, a respondent and would not be an appropriate respondent given that the Secretary of State’s liability to pay has not yet crystallised. Accordingly, there is no claim against the Secretary of State in the Employment Tribunals at present and this Judgment brings these Employment Tribunal proceedings to an end.