Mr A Bigverdi v STR 48 Ltd: 2301321/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The name of the respondent is amended to STR 48 Limited.[2]The claims are dismissed under rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.REASONS
[1]The correct respondent to the claim is STR 48 Limited. This is because it matches the company name on the claimant’s payslips and is the entity which has responded to the claim, including providing an extract from its payroll system.[2]Neither party attended the final hearing. Enquiries were made by the Tribunal clerk and no information was provided suggesting a good reason for the absence of the claimant or respondent. The claimant’s phone number did not connect and the respondent had not provided a telephone number. Also, the respondent had already indicated by email dated 25 October 2022 that it was not intending on attending the final hearing.[3]I considered whether to proceed in the claimant’s absence. However, no request for an adjournment had been made and there was no apparent reason to justify an adjournment. There was no clear or evidenced reason to believe that the parties would attend any future hearing. The parties were notified that the hearing would be in person by correspondence dated 24 October 2022 and notice of the hearing date was sent by correspondence dated 16 November 2022. Also, no witness evidence was filed in support of either party’s case, although Case No: 2301321/2022 there had been some very limited engagement by the parties by email. I considered that dismissal was proportionate and justified in the circumstances of this case under rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.