Mr P Lis v Lis Logistics Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation): 2301790/2023
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]The respondent company was dissolved on 2 December 2023 and the claimant has not applied to have it restored to the Register of Companies.[2]The claim is therefore struck out. Employment Judge Tsamados Date: 03 May 2024 Case No: 2301790/2023 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr P Lis Respondent: Secretary of State for Business and Trade Heard at: London South (remotely by CVP) On: 24 October 2024 Before: Employment Judge Heath Representation Claimant: Did not attend Respondent: Mr P Soni (Lay representative)[1]There was a hearing before EJ Tsamados on 3 May 2024 at which:a. Today’s hearing was listed.b. Orders were made requiring the claimant by 17 May 2024 to produce a witness statement in which he provides all relevant information supporting his claims and the amount he seeks.c. The name of the respondent was corrected, and they were ordered to be served with the claim.d. The original first respondent was dismissed from proceedings.e. The broad issues in the case were set out.[2]The above matters were set out in a Record of a Preliminary Hearing sent to the parties on 6 June 2024.[3]On 20 June 2024 the respondent presented a response in which it denied the Case No: 2301790/2023 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 claimant’s entitlement to payment from the National Insurance Fund in a detailed Grounds of Resistance.[4]On 16 August 2024 a letter was sent to the parties on the instructions of EJ Ramsden. The parties were informed that the start time and hearing length of today’s hearing were amended to a full day starting at 10am. The claimant was informed that he must send any evidence and any witness statement he wished to rely on to the respondent by no later than 7 days before today’s hearing.[5]At 10am today only Mr Soni representing the respondent attended. A tribunal clerk, on my instruction, attempted to contact the claimant by phone on the contact details provided by the claimant. She telephoned twice but no one answered. She left a voicemail.[6]At 10.12am I started the hearing. I asked Mr Soni if he could shed any light on the claimant’s non-attendance. Mr Soni said that the ET1 does not provide an email address for the claimant and so a paper bundle was sent to the claimant by special delivery and its delivery was acknowledged. Further documents were sent by post on 22 October 2024. Both communications referred to the hearing today. Mr Soni further told me that nothing in the way of evidence or witness statements has been received pursuant to the directions of EJ Tsamados or the instructions of EJ Ramsden. Nothing has been heard of at all from the claimant.[7]In the circumstances Mr Soni invited me to dismiss the claim under Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[8]This Rule provides as follows: If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party's absence.[9]I considered the following information:a. The claimant had been informed a number of times of this hearing.b. The claimant has failed to comply with orders and instructions to provide evidence.c. The claimant has not contacted the tribunal to apply for a postponement, or indeed contact the tribunal for any reason.d. The claimant was not contactable shortly after the hearing was due to begin, and thus was unable to provide any information about his absence.evidence.
[10]In the circumstances, and having regard to Rule 47 and Rule 2 (the overriding objective) of Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 I dismissed the claim at 10.20.[11]At 10.48am I was emailed by the clerk to say that the claimant had just called to say that he would be writing to the tribunal to explain the reasons for not attending today.[12]As I have already dismissed the claim, I will instruct this judgment to be sent out, and will consider any communication from the claimant as appropriate. Case No: 2301790/2023 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017