Mr S Singh v HCH Property and Investment Ltd: 1802475/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant is entitled to a Judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent has failed to present a response within the allocated time.[2]Accordingly the complaint of failure to pay holiday pay contrary to the Working Time Regulations 1988 succeeds.[3]The claimant is awarded the sum of £1,100 which is payable to him by the respondent forthwith. Case No: 1802475/2020 (A)REASONS
[1]When presenting his claim on 4 May 2020 Mr Singh named the respondent as HCH Property and Investment Limited. The claim was served at the address the claimant provided for the respondent, which was 2 Unicorn Hill, Redditch B97 4QN.[2]When the claim was referred to me on 17 June 2020 to consider whether it was appropriate to enter a Judgment at that stage (no response having been received from the respondent) I directed that the claim should be re-sent to the respondent’s registered office at 485 Birmingham Road, Marlbrook, Bromsgrove B61 0HZ. That re-sending was effected on 23 June 2020.[3]Again no response was received. The file was placed before another Employment Judge at the end of June with a view to a Rule 21 Judgment being considered. For reasons which I cannot understand, that Judge believed that the respondent company had been dissolved and declined to make a Judgment on that basis.[4]On 8 July 2020 the claimant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that he believed that the company had not been dissolved. Rather confusingly when explaining why he believed it existed he gave a company registration number of 08931736 which turns out to be the number of what appears to be a sister company of the respondent, HCA Care Limited.[5]Because of the ongoing confusion an Employment Judge decided that there should be a telephone hearing to clarify matters and that is what I have undertaken today. Perhaps unsurprisingly the respondent did not take part in today’s hearing. Indeed their ability to do so would have been limited as they had not entered a response. The claimant has confirmed to me that despite referring to a number which relates to a different company, the correct respondent is, and always has been, HCH Property and Investments Limited. I am satisfied that that company has been properly served with the claim but has failed to present a response. In those circumstances the claimant is entitled to a Judgment in default.