Mr R Penfold v Aces Auto Mall Ltd: 2302880/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The proper identity of the Respondent is Aces Auto Mall Limited and the title to the proceedings is amended accordingly.[2]The Claimant’s claim for holiday pay is not well founded and is dismissed.REASONS
[1]On 9 November 2017 the Claimant was given notice of this hearing.[2]He failed to attend when the case was called. Calls to his phone were unanswered: a message was left.[3]I proceeded in his absence. The onus was on the Claimant to prove his claim. I read his claim, the Response and a letter from the Respondent’s accountant.[4]I was not satisfied that the Claimant was owed holiday pay.