Ms C Wynne v Mr C Haywood and CLH Investments Ltd: 1806112/2017
JUDGMENT
The First Respondent has presented a response and attended a hearing on 8 January 2018. At that hearing it became apparent that he was not the Claimant’s employer: she was employed by the Second Respondent. The claim was served on the Second Respondent, which has not presented a response. It is still described as “active” on the Register of Companies. There is sufficient information to enable a determination to be made of the claim against the Second Respondent pursuant to Rule 21. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that:[1]The claim against the First Respondent is dismissed.[2]The Second Respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages and shall pay the Claimant £693.75 gross.