Mr E Hachicha v Stronghold Global Finance (UK) Ltd: 2216781/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2216781/2023
Mr. Elyes HachichaClaimantStronghold Global Finance (UK) Ltd. Hearing: Preliminary HearingRespondent
Employment Judge TinnionDate 28 February 2024

JUDGMENT

[1]It is appropriate to make a judgment against the Respondent under Rule 21.[2]The Respondent must pay the total sum of £2,293.14 to the Claimant:a. £997.82 for unpaid wages in September 2023;b. £1,045.33 for unpaid wages in October 2023;c. £249.99 for unpaid business expenses.

REASONS

[3]By his ET1 Claim Form presented on 28 November 2023, the Claimant brought claims under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against the Respondent, his then employer, seeking compensation for failing to pay him the following wages and reimbursement of business expenses:(i) £997.82 wages for September 2023 (payable early October 2023)(ii) £1,045.33 wages for October 2023 (payable early November 2023)(iii) £249.99 expenses. The Respondent did not present a response to that claim. By email on 16 February 2024, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to either (1) state whether it had submitted a response/ET3 and if so when and how (with a copy and the cover letter/email under which it was submitted), or (2) confirm it had not submitted a response/ET and whether it wished to defend the claim, and – if it wished to defend the claim – to send the Tribunal a response/ET3 together with an application for an extension of time to present the response including its reasons for not presenting the ET3 within the time allocation. The Tribunal’s email further 1 of 2 Case No: 2216781/2023 stated that if it did not hear from the Respondent it was likely to issue judgment against the Respondent without further notice. The Tribunal’s email attached copies of the Claimant’s ET1, and notice of the preliminary hearing on 28 February 2024. The Respondent did not reply to that correspondence, made no application, and did not attend the hearing. At the hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the materials before it and was satisfied it understood the factual and legal basis of the claim and was in a position to make a judgment under Rule 21, and duly did so. NOTE[4]Tribunal judgments are published online after they are sent to the parties.