Mr E Hindle v Core Guard Security Ltd: 2407613/2023
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]It is noted that the claimant identified within the claim form, that the respondent was Daniel Perkins, the managing director of the company Core Guard Security Limited, but that the claimant asserts within the claim form that he resigned from the company as director. This company is named as the proposed respondent in the ACAS early conciliation certificate number R196705/23/87 dated 25 July 2023 and according to Companies House it shares the same address for service as Mr Perkins. Consequently, it is accepted that the Mr Perkins as director, will have received the Notice of Claim and accompanying documents on behalf of Core Guard Security Limited.[2]Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice that the respondent’s name is amended and varied from Daniel Perkins, to: Core Guard Security Limited, with the registered office being Gilbert Wakefield House, 65-67 Bewsey Street, Warrington, WA2 7JQ.[3]The respondent has not replied to the Notice of Claim dated 21 August 2023 and he has not presented a response confirming whether they wish to defend the claim by 18 September 2023.[4]As Mr Perkins has not responded on behalf of the respondent company, despite having received the Notice of Claim from the Tribunal, the claimant’s claim is successful, and the respondent must pay the claimant the total gross sum of £1438.32 which is comprised of the following successful complaints arising from the termination of the claimant’s employment:(a) A failure to pay annual leave entitlement (holiday pay) - £589.16.(b) Unlawful deduction from wages - £849.16.(c) Total sum payable by respondent to claimant - £1438.32