Miss L Harris v Philharmonic Ltd and Croeso Staff Ltd: 1600393/2020
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross/net sum of £383.09. The case remains to be listed for hearing against the first respondent at a date to be confirmed. _____________________________ Employment Judge Brace Date: 6 July 2020 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON ………7 July 2020…………………… AND ENTERED IN THE REGISTER ………………………………………………… FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No.:1600393/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms L. Harris Respondent: Philharmonic Ltd (R1) Croeso Staff Ltd (2) HELD AT: Wrexham by CVP ON: 27th July 2020 BEFORE: Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Ms Harris represented herself (a Litigant in Person) Respondent: Absent – the respondents confirmed their non-attendance JUDGMENT In the circumstances of judgment having been entered against R2 (sent to the parties on 7th July 2020) for the whole sum claimed (£383.09), R2 having tendered full payment, and the claimant awaiting clearance of the proffered cheque, the judgment of the Tribunal is that:[1]Today’s hearing is postponed indefinitely, and these proceedings are stayed until 17th August 2020;[2]Unless the claimant applies for the stay to be lifted, with an explanation for that application, by no later than 4pm on 17th August 2020 R1 shall be dismissed as an interested party on the basis of deemed withdrawal of the claim against it, and the claim against R2 shall be deemed concluded upon satisfaction of the judgment debt; in those circumstances the tribunal will close its file without further notification and without the need for any further hearing. The respondents are not required to do anything further pending formal notification, if any. Case No.:1600393/2020 2 Employment Judge T.V. Ryan Date: 27.07.20REASONS
[1]By Judgment dated 27 July 2020 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the complaint against the Philharmonic Ltd should not be struck out because it has not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The complaint against the Philharmonic Ltd is therefore dismissed and the file closed.