Miss V Tanai v Old Town Apartments Ltd: 2300496/2021
JUDGMENT
The claim is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The Tribunal notified the Respondent on 2nd March 2021 that the Claimant had made an Employment Tribunal claim against them[2]The Respondent changed its registered office on 12 March 2021. Notice of proceedings was therefore re-served on the respondent at the new registered office on 9th July 2021. All subsequent correspondence to the Respondent was sent to the new registered office,[3]No response was received from the Respondent and no ET3 was filed by them.[4]On 22 November 2021, the Tribunal notified the parties that a hearing would take place on 21 April 2022. The Claimant was notified by email and the Respondent by post.[5]On 12th January 2022, a Rule 21 referral was made and the Employment Judge decided that the hearing should be kept as listed as the claim had not been quantified.[6]The Tribunal emailed the Claimant on 13th January 2022 informing the Claimant that the Respondent had failed to respond to her claim within the 28 day period provided by the Rules. She was asked to write to the tribunal giving details of her wages and calculation of loss. She did not respond. Case No:2300496/2021[7]The Tribunal notified the Claimant (by email) and the Respondent (by post) on 11th April 2022 informing them both that the hearing on 21st April 2022 at 10.00 am would go ahead as a remote video hearing and requesting an email address and phone number. Neither party responded.[8]Neither party attended the hearing on 21st April 2022 at 10.00 am.[9]The Tribunal had no email address or telephone number for the Respondent and so was unable to contact them[10]The Tribunal emailed the Claimant at 10.15 but received no reply after 15 minutes. The Tribunal had no telephone number for the Claimant and so was unable to call them.[11]A Search at Companies House revealed that the Respondent company was to be struck off the register on 26th April 2022. The Tribunal noted that this date was after the date of the hearing.[12]Having considered all the information available and having made all enquiries that were practicable, the Tribunal concluded that no satisfactory reasons were given by either party for their absence and the Tribunal therefore orders that the claim be dismissed pursuant to Rule 47.