Ms de Rada v Sweetings (City) Ltd and Others: 2218581/2024
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:(1) The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal cannot proceed against the second and third respondent as such a claim can only be brought against her employer, namely the first respondent.(2) The Claimant’s remaining claims are dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the Claimant failed to attend the hearing.REASONS
[1]The Claimant worked at a restaurant.[2]By a claim form presented on 17 April 2024, following a period of early conciliation which started and finished on 18 March 2024, the Claimant presented a claim of unfair dismissal and for other payments which were unspecified. The claim was made against three respondents.[3]The first Respondent, Sweetings (City) Limited was the Claimant’s employer. The second Respondent, Ms Knowles owns the first Respondent. The third Respondent is a manager at the restaurant.[4]It was not in dispute that the Claimant had been dismissed, Although there was a difference between the parties in relation to the date of termination, it was not in dispute that the Claimant had more than two years’ service at the time of termination and was therefore entitled to pursue a claim of unfair dismissal against the first Respondent.[5]When presenting their Response, the Respondents noted that the Claimant had not specified the basis of her claim for other payments or how much she said she was owed. They also observed that the claim of unfair dismissal could only be brought against the First Respondent and not the Second or Third Respondents.[6]The Claimant wrote to the tribunal on 7 November 2024 asking for an update in the case. The correspondence was referred to Employment Judge B Smith who listed today’s public preliminary hearing. He instructed that the notice of hearing, which was sent to the parties on 14 November 2024, say that the hearing would deal with the following:• whether or not the claims against the second and or third respondents should be struck out because they have no reasonable prospect of success;• any application by the claimant to amend the claim;• clarification of the claims identification of the list of issues; and• case management and listing of the final hearing.[7]He instructed that the Claimant also be told the following: “The claimant has failed to specify what, if any, her claim for 'other payments' as included in the claim form is. If the claimant is making a claim for something other than unfair dismissal then she must say exactly what she is claiming, and why, in writing. This must be sent to the respondent and tribunal within 14 days of the date this communication was sent. If the claimant wants to make a claim that is not included in her claim form then she will need to apply to the tribunal to amend her claim. Any application to amend a claim must be made in writing and say exactly what the changes or new claim are. It must also say why those details were not included in the original claim form.”[8]The Claimant failed to write to the respondents or the tribunal as ordered. She also failed to attend today’s hearing.[9]The Tribunal rang the Claimant and left a message for her before the hearing started. It also emailed her. The start of the hearing was delayed by 30 minutes to give her an opportunity to respond, but she failed to do so.[10]As the claim of unfair dismissal cannot proceed against the Second and Third respondents, I have dismissed it. I also decided to dismiss the rest of the claims under Rule 47 which allows me to dismiss a claim where a party fails to attend a hearing.[11]If the Claimant has an explanation for why she did not comply with the tribunal order or attend the hearing, she can apply this judgment to be revoked under Rule 69. This would require her to make a written application within 14 days of the date this judgment is sent to her explaining her position and providing any evidence in support.