Miss G Smith v C Whitley and J Whitley T/a The Plassey Hair Studio: 1600343/2023
JUDGMENT
In the absence of an ET3 response from the respondents, and there being sufficient material before me to enable a proper determination to be made, I uphold the following claim: The Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy by the Respondents, Clare Whitley and Julian Whitley t/a The Plassey Hair Studio on 23 September 2022. She is therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment from the Respondents, calculated at 14 years i.e. £4,037.11. I act in accordance with my powers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013.REASONS
[1]The claim was served on the respondents on the trading address given for the First Respondent and at the address provided by the Claimant for the Second Respondent.[2]A response was due by 20 April 2023 but none was received.[3]An Employment Judge is required by rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to decide on the available material whether a determination can be made and , if so, obliged to issue a judgment which may determine liability only or liability and remedy. Case Number: 1600343/2023[4]I have in the claim form sufficient to enable me to find the claim for a redundancy payment proved on a balance of probability against the respondents and the amount claimed in particular the Confirmation of Entitlements document provided to the Claimant by the Respondent.[5]The Respondent may submit an application for reconsideration and a draft response within 14 days of the date upon which this judgment is sent to the parties.