Miss Kelly Russell v AKT Marketing Ltd (formerly Inov8 Claims Ltd): 1601078/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The following background is provided insofar as relevant to the promulgation of this judgment.[2]The claimant presented her ET1 claim form to the tribunal on 15 November 2017, following a period of Acas early conciliation between 16 October 2017 and 9 November 2017. She alleged that she suffered an unlawful deduction in her wages. She identified the dates of her employment as 18 September 2017 to 9 October 2017. Although she named Mr Tim Schubert as the respondent, she wrote in her claim form that the deduction related to her work for “his company Inov8 in Bridgend”.[3]The ET1 claim form has been served as follows:3.1 On 20 December 2017, at the direction of Employment Judge Beard, it was served on Mr Schubert at Inov8 Claims Limited, Innovation House, Bridgend Road, Llanharan, CF72 9RP (the address provided by the claimant on her ET1 claim form).3.2 No ET3 response having been received, on 26 February 2018, at the direction of Employment Judge Cadney, it was served on ‘AKT Marketing Limited, formerly known as Inov8 Claims Limited’, at 8 Axis Court, Mallard Way, Llansamlet, Swansea, SA7 0AJ (an alternative address provided by the claimant); and3.3 No ET3 response having been received, on 28 August 2018, at the direction of Employment Judge Emery, it was served on AKT Marketing Limited at an email address given for Mr Schubert by the claimant (the delay appears to have caused by the administration not acting on Employment Judge Emery’s instruction for two months). For completeness, I add that I had made no order for substituted service under Rule 89 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013.[4]A search at Companies House confirms Mr Schubert to be an active director of AKT Marketing Limited (having been appointed on 1 March 2017) and, further, that it was known as Inov8 Claims Limited between 21 February 2017 and 16 November 2017. The registered office address for AKT Marketing Limited is given by Companies House as 8 Axis Court in Llansamlet and the correspondence address for Mr Schubert as a director is given as Innovation House in Llanharan.[5]Mr Schubert emailed the tribunal on 28 August 2018 to say: “thank you for this information but I am mot associated with AKT marketing anymore, i cannot help with a forwarding address as i think they have ceased trading”.[6]On 11 September 2018, at my direction, the tribunal emailed Mr Schubert to ask whether this meant, insofar as he was able to assist, that AKT Marketing Limited would not be defending the claim. Mr Schubert replied the same day in these terms: “This is correct akt marketing was formed in november and never traded at the address miss Russell is claiming against”.[7]In the meantime, the claimant emailed the tribunal on 12 September 2018 to say that she did not understand why AKT Marketing Limited had been “brought into this”, as it was “another company that Tim Schubert opened after he stopped trading as Inov8”.[8]On 26 September 2018, at my direction, the tribunal wrote to the parties (using the email address for the claimant and for Mr Schubert) in these terms: Regional Employment Judge Clarke, having reviewed the file, is satisfied that all reasonable attempts have been made to bring this claim to the attention of Mr Schubert and ‘AKT Marketing Limited’ (formerly known as ‘Inov8 Claims Limited’). As the attached Companies House search makes clear, Inov8 Claims Limited did not close down but merely changed its name to AKT Marketing Limited on 16/11/2017. They have the same company number. The tribunal will now issue a judgment in favour of the claimant against AKT Marketing Limited …[9]The claimant was asked to confirm the sum that was owing. She replied the same day to say that she was owed wages in the sum of £400 and one day’s holiday pay in the sum of £80. She attached a screenshot from her telephone in which the unidentified sender (but said by her to be Mr Schubert) agreed she was owed one week in wages.[10]Mr Schubert also replied the same day to say that the claimant “never worked for inov8 claims ltd it was a dormant company and had not traded between march and november”. In a subsequent email he described the claimant’s claim as a fabrication, blackmail and extortion. Rule 21[11]Insofar as relevant, Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013 provides as follows: Effect of non-presentation … of response …(1) Where on the expiry of the time limit in rule 16 no response has been presented … paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply.(2) An Employment Judge shall decide whether on the available material (which may include further information which the parties are required by a Judge to provide), a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it. To the extent that a determination can be made, the Judge shall issue a judgment accordingly. Otherwise, a hearing shall be fixed before a Judge alone.(3) The respondent shall be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but, unless and until an extension of time is granted, shall only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Judge.[12]It remains the case that the respondent company has failed to enter an ET3 response and Mr Schubert confirmed by email dated 11 September 2018 that it would not be defending the claim. The claimant has provided details of the amount owing and I consider that there is sufficient material before me to enable a proper determination to be made. Judgment[13]In accordance with my powers under Rule 21, I uphold the following claims:• Unpaid wages (gross): £400• Unpaid holiday pay (gross): £80 Total £480[14]The claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.