Mr I Coote v Indepth Utilities Ltd: 1400538/2020
JUDGMENT
Upon the Claimant not attending, the claim is struck out for non-pursuit. Employment Judge Smail Date: 05 February 2020 Judgment sent to the parties: 17 February 2020 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number: 1400538/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant and Respondent Mr I Coote Indepth Utilities Ltd In: Exeter On: 15 March 2021 Employment Judge Smail In Chambers RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT[1]The Judgment dated 5 February 2021 striking out the Claimant’s claim is revoked. It seems the Claimant did not know of the hearing date and time.[2]The hearing of this matter will take place in person at 10 am on Friday 30 April 2021 at the Exeter Law Courts, Southernhay Gardens, Exeter EX1 1UH, with a time estimate of 2 hours.[3]The Claimant must serve a witness statement and documents in support of his claim on the Respondent by 29 March 2021.[4]The Respondent may serve a counter-statement and evidence on the Claimant by 16 April 2021.[5]The parties are to bring to the hearing copies of the paperwork for the use of the judge. Employment Judge Smail South West Region Date: 15 March 2021 Judgment sent to the parties: 17 March 2021 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number: 1400538/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant Respondent Mr I Coote AND Indepth Utilities Limited Heard at: Exeter in Person On: 30 April 2021 Employment Judge Smail Representation: The Claimant in Person No attendance on behalf of the Respondent[1]The Claimant’s claims of unauthorised deductions from earnings and/or breach of contract are well-founded.[2]The Respondent must pay the Claimant £6,769.75 immediately.REASONS
[1]Contrary to the assertions in the Response, it is clear that the Claimant worked for the Respondent. I have seen a welcome letter from the Respondent’s directors and an example time sheet bearing the Respondent’s name.[2]I believe the Claimant when he tells me he was promised £13.50 an hour and that he worked 488.5 hours. Further, he was promised £175 for the use of his own pick-up truck.[3]The Claimant was employed at the beginning of the Respondent’s new venture into groundwork. It seems this was not successful.[4]It is clear he is owed the money, however.