Mr John Cayley v Mr Barry Whitehead and Complete Cellar Services Ltd: 2303187/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]Having ascertained that the respondents had acknowledged receipt of the notification of today’s Hearing, and it not being possible to contact them by phone, we decided to proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the respondents.[2]The second respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in the sum of £1656.00. However, this sum has now been paid by the second respondent to the claimant and, therefore, no sums are due to the claimant. Case Number: 2303187/2018 2[3]The second respondent failed to give the claimant a written itemised pay statement.[4]The claims against the first respondent are dismissed. Employment Judge Kelly Signed on: 4 September 2020 Claimant: Mr John Cayley Respondent: Mr Barry Whitehead[1]The rule 21 judgment is revoked. The Respondent did not receive notice of the Employment Tribunal claim until enforcement proceedings were commenced.[2]The Respondent’s response has been accepted under rule 20. The Respondent has provided grounds of resistance which set out a meritorious defence to the claim. He has provided an adequate explanation for the delay. Clearly there is a greater prejudice to the Respondent if he is not allowed to defend the claim.[3]The response has been entered in the Respondent’s name and that of Complete Cellar Services Ltd, who it is averred is the correct Respondent to the claim. The first Respondent is a director of the second Respondent limited company. Complete Cellar Services Ltd of Unit 6, Stadium Park, Castle Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3BG is added as the second Respondent. The issue of who the correct Respondent is will be considered by the Tribunal at the full hearing.[4]The case will now be listed for a full hearing for one hour before a Judge sitting alone on the first available date. A separate notice of hearing will be sent.