Mrs D Oosthuizen v Healthcare4u Recruitment Ltd: 1403741/2023
JUDGMENT
The Claimant did not attend the hearing and the claim was dismissed, pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.REASONS
[1]In this case the Claimant, Mrs Oosthuizen, brought a claim for unpaid wages, against her former employer.[2]The Claimant had notified ACAS of a dispute in relation to her pay on 12 June 2023 and a certificate was issued on 14 June 2023.[3]The Claimant presented her claim on 14 June 2023. In the claim form she said she was employed by the Respondent between 1 March 2023 and 31 May 2023.[4]On 23 June 2023, the claim was served on Healthcare4u Recruitment Limited at 50 Bradford Street, Walsall, WS1 3QD, the address in the claim form. No response was received. A check on companies house revealed Case No. 1403741/2023 that the Healthcare4u Recruitment Limited was dissolved on 16 March 2021, before she says she was employed by it, and it had a different registered address. The 50 Bradford Street address, was a previous registered address which was changed in 2020.[5]On 14 August 2023, the Claimant was written to, at the e-mail address she provided on the claim form, and informed that Healthcare4u Recruitment Limited no longer existed as a legal entity and was asked if she had any documentation identifying the company or person which employed her. The Claimant did not respond by the date stated and was reminded to respond on 24 August 2023, by 31 August 2023. No response was received.[6]The Claimant was sent the link to the video hearing on 22 September 2023, at the e-mail address she provided to the Tribunal.[7]The Claimant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal office, at 1145, telephoned the Claimant on the telephone number provided on the claim form. The call was not answered. A further telephone call was made by the Tribunal Office and a voicemail was left informing the Claimant of the hearing and that she should join through the link sent on Friday. This was followed by an e-mail sent at 1203 reminding her of the hearing and stating it would start at 1215.[8]The Claimant did not respond to the telephone call and did not join the video hearing. The Claimant had previously failed to respond to correspondence from the Tribunal. It did not appear that the claim was being actively pursued. Reasonable enquiries were made to try and ascertain any reason as to why the Claimant did not join the hearing. In the circumstances it was appropriate to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s nonattendance, in accordance with rule 47.