Mr G Goda v Izakaya Soho Ltd: 2201464/2019
JUDGMENT
On hearing the claimant in person and Mr Prais for the respondent, on considering the written submissions on behalf of the respondent, and the witness statement of Mr Sonny Huang, on hearing live evidence from Mr Huang, and further submissions from the parties, the judgment of the tribunal is as follows:(1) The Judgment of Employment Judge Goodman dated 19 August 2019 is set aside under rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that the interests of justice require it. This is because I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities on the basis of what I have heard today that the respondent did not receive the Employment Tribunal claim form.(2) The respondent is given leave to submit a response to the employment tribunal claim form out of time, and to continue to defend the proceedings.REASONS
[1]This is a wages claim and, although it is possible to infer the potential basis on which it is advanced, it is not clear from the file quite how the Claimant would have argued the matter. On 27 January 2020 at a case management hearing he was ordered (as was the Respondent) to exchange witness statements before 16 March 2020.[2]The Respondent’s solicitor drew to the Claimant’s attention on 26 March that no statement had been received. On 11 August, in the absence of any communication from the Claimant at all, the solicitor wrote again to say that in these circumstances an application to strike out the claim would be made at today’s hearing.[3]The Claimant has not attended. As far as I can ascertain with the staff, he has made no attempt to communicate with the tribunal. In these circumstances the only just result, in my view, is that the claim is dismissed. As I have observed it is not clear how the matter would be argued by the Claimant. Case Number: 2201464 /2019 2 What is certain is that some evidence as to the events surrounding his employment with the Respondent is essential for his claim to be understood. The chronology indicates with some clarity that the claim has not been actively pursued. Had it been, he would have exchanged a witness statement and if there was any reason why this could not be done, he would have communicated with the Respondent. He was warned last week that he remained in default and he might have responded to that email. In any event, there is no explanation of why he has not appeared today. He falls squarely within rule 37(1)(d) as well as rule 47 and his claim must be dismissed.