Ms M Chan and Mr W Chan v Salon +M Ltd: 2305178/2025 and 2305179/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]Judgment is entered for the claimants under Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The first claimant[2]The respondent made an unlawful deduction from the 1st claimant’s wages in November and December 2025, and failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay, and it is ordered to pay her the sum of £308.26.[3]The respondent failed to pay the 1st claimant one week’s notice pay and it is ordered to pay her the sum of £364.00.[4]The respondent failed to provide the 1st claimant with a statement of employment particulars, and it is just and equitable to award the claimant an additional two week’s wages in the sum of £728.00. 1 of 3[5]The total the respondent must pay the 1st claimant is therefore £1,400.00. The second claimant[6]The respondent made an unlawful deduction from the 2nd claimant’s wages in October, November and December 2025, and failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay, and it is ordered to pay him the sum of £1,073.71.[7]The respondent failed to pay the 2nd claimant one week’s notice pay and it is ordered to pay him the sum of £435.89.[8]The respondent failed to provide the 2nd claimant with a statement of employment particulars, and it is just and equitable to award the claimant an additional two week’s wages in the sum of £871.78.[9]The total the respondent must pay the 2nd claimant is therefore £2,381.38.REASONS
[1]The hearing was listed to consider the claimants’ wages claims. No ET3 response was presented within the prescribed time and no application to extend time has been presented. Under Rule 22, judgment may be entered and the respondent is not entitled to be heard unless to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.[2]Before the hearing, the claimants were asked to supply information about the remedy in their claim in an effort for the matter to be decided on the papers. The claimants supplied that information but the matter was not put back before a Judge before this hearing date arrived.[3]There were technical issues with the hearing today. The translator had difficulties hearing some of the parties present. Not all of the parties arrived on time. The 2nd claimant informed the Tribunal he was unable to attend. By 10:30am, the problems continued and I determined that an effective hearing was not possible, despite the clerk’s best efforts.[4]In the circumstances, where there was no defence filed and no application to extend time, and where the claimant’s had provided sufficient information for the matter to be determined without a hearing, I determined it was in the interests of the overriding objective to end the hearing and make a determination on the papers. In my judgment, this is a more proportionate response than listing another hearing at some point in the future. That would prejudice the claimants by delay in circumstances where they have provided what I needed in writing and where the claims cannot be defended today.[5]I accept the evidence provided by the claimants in writing on 26 January 2026. I accept the calculations provided. I also find that the respondent failed to provide the claimants with a written statement of particulars as required by s1 Employment 2 of 3 Rights Act 1996. Under s38 Employment Act 2002, I must apply a sanction against the respondent of either two or four weeks’ pay. I consider it just and equitable to award an additional two weeks’ pay. It is not the sort of exceptional case where four weeks’ pay is justifiable.[6]After the hearing, the respondent sent in submissions in respect of liability. It reads to me as an intended defence. It is not on form ET3. There is no application to extend time to file a response. I do not take it into account.[7]The judgment amounts must be paid within 14 days of this document being sent to the parties. Aproved by