Miss G Goodridge and others v DM Operating Bars Ltd: 1306209/2020 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]The Judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The Respondent’s responses in relation to each of the Claimants are allowed in out of time and will be accepted as responses to the above claims. Employment Judge Noons Date 15.02.2021[2]Case Number 1306209/2020 1306210/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant(1) MISS G GOODRIDGE(2) MR P DIXON AND Respondent DM OPERATING LTD (IN CREDITORS VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)[3]JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL HELD AT Birmingham ON 2 September 2022 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE CLARKE Representation For the Claimants: No attendance For the Respondent: No attendance[5]The Judgment of the tribunal is that: 1. The claim is dismissed.REASONS
[1]I am satisfied that the Claimants were given notice of today’s hearing by email on 16 May 2022 and by post on 18 August 2022. The Respondent, through its Liquidators responded to the 18 August 2022 Notice of Hearing by letter of 26 August 2022. The Claimant Miss Goodridge refers to receipt of the May 2022 email in her email to the Tribunal of 2 September 2022 (received at 04.26 hours).[2]The Respondent’s liquidators indicated in the letter, referred to above, that they did not intend to attend today’s hearing. Case Number 1306209/2020 1306210/2020[3]Miss Goodridge indicated in her email, referred to above, that she would not attend today as she is currently abroad on a trip planned since February 2022. She also indicates that she no longer wishes, “this case to continue.”[4]No party attend today’s hearing. Enquiries were made of the Claimant Mr Dixon, but there was no reply to the mobile telephone number the Tribunal has for him on file.[5]A bundle of documents had not been produced for the hearing.[6]I considered whether to proceed with the hearing in the Claimants’ absence but decided not to for the following reasons:a. There was no bundle of evidence or witness statements produced for this hearing.b. The issues, both procedural and substantive, appear complicated and not suited to determination on the papers.c. The Claimant Miss Goodridge indicated that she did not want to continue with the case.d. There was no explanation for the Claimant Mr Dixon’s absence.[7]I therefore dismiss the claims under Rule 47.