Miss A Neighbour v Mr JW Wells and STR 48 Ltd (in voluntary liquidation): 2302668/2023
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 22[1]The Claimant worked as a waitress/bartender at a restaurant in Richmond called Antipodea.[2]The Claimant presented her claim to the London South Employment Tribunal by a Claim Form dated 2 June 2023.[3]That Claim Form identified the First Respondent and the Second Respondent as respondents.[4]The Tribunal is satisfied that Notice of Claim was correctly served on both Respondents on 10 November 2023. At that time, the First Respondent was a statutory director of the Second Respondent. Notice of Claim was served on the Second Respondent at its then registered address, and on the First Respondent at the address of the restaurant at which the Claimant worked.[5]Neither the First Respondent nor the Second Respondent presented a valid response to the claim on time on the expiry of the time limit in Rule 17 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (the ET Rules).[6]None of the parties attended the hearing today, despite being notified of it by the Tribunal on 18 February 2025. This hearing was listed to be the Final Hearing, and the outstanding issue to be determined was identified in a letter to the parties of 18 February 2025, namely, the identity of the Claimant’s employer. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2302668/2023[7]The reason that question is of paramount importance is that only an employer can be liable for unauthorised deductions from wages and for unpaid holiday pay.[8]The Tribunal notes that it received information and evidence from the Claimant on 5 January 2024, which included a payslip which has the Second Respondent’s name on it. In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, it appears to the Tribunal that the Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent. The Tribunal judges that that is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent, and therefore the claim against the First Respondent is therefore not well-founded and is dismissed.[9]The Employment Judge has decided that, pursuant to Rule 22(2) of the ET Rules, a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, against the Second Respondent on the available material, and finds that: a) The Second Respondent did not pay the Claimant for some of the work performed by her in the period 27 February to 26 March 2022, and therefore made unauthorised deductions from her wages under section 13 of the 1996 Act; and b) The Second Respondent failed to pay the Claimant compensation for holiday leave which she had accrued but not taken on the termination of her employment, and so these complaints are well-founded.[10]The Second Respondent must pay to the Claimant damages in the sum of £1,244.44 gross, calculated as follows: a) £575.64 in respect of sums deducted from her wages without authorisation; and b) £668.80 by way of compensation for 10.1 days of holiday which the Claimant had accrued but not taken on the termination of her employment.[11]The Claimant must account to HMRC for any sums owed by her in respect of any payment received by her pursuant to this judgment.