Mr P Moore and Others v Utility Alliance Ltd - In administration and Secretary Of State For Business,Energy and Industrial Strategy: 2500935/2021 and Others
JUDGMENT
The claims are struck out.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 24/9/2021 the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claims should not be struck out because• it has not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The claim is therefore struck out. _____________________________ Employment Judge Martin 20 October 2021 Case No. 2500935/21 & others EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: Mr P Moore Mr R Moore Mr D Sutherland Respondents:(1) Utility Alliance Ltd – in administration(2) Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy BEFORE: Employment Judge Martin[3]The Tribunal received submissions from both parties: - Firstly from the first claimant on 3 May 2022, who did not specifically comment on the reconsideration, other than to suggest that the claimants were still awaiting their redundancy payments. The second respondent responded by email on 4 May. They submitted that the first respondent, being the insolvent company, should also remain as a party to these proceedings because they act as statutory guarantor for the former employer. The second respondent submits that any potential award should be made against the first respondent so any recovery can be made against the National Insurance Fund. No submissions were made by the first respondent.[4]The Tribunal considered the submissions of the parties in particular noting the comments and determined that it could deal with the reconsideration without a hearing.[5]The Tribunal considers that it is in the interests of justice to vary or set aside the judgement of 20 October 2021. For those reasons the judgement made on 20 October 2021 is hereby revoked. _____________________________ Employment Judge Martin Date 19 July 2022 2 1 Case Number: 2500935/2021, 2500936/2021, 2500937/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: 1. Mr P Moore 2. Mr R Moore 3. Mr D Sutherland Respondent: 1. Utility Alliance Ltd (in administration) 2. Secretary of State for BEIS Heard at: Newcastle Employment Tribunal (remotely by CVP) On: 19 April 2023 Before: Employment Judge Sweeney Representation Claimants: In person, Respondent: No attendance[1]The Claimants were employed by the First Respondent under a contract of employment from 10 February 2015 to 12 February 2021 without any break in continuity of employment.[2]On a reference by the Claimants under section 170 Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’), the Tribunal determines that the First Respondent is liable to pay the Claimants an “employer’s payment” within the meaning of section 166(2)(a) ERA, namely a redundancy payment.[3]The employer’s payment is payable by the Second Respondent.[4]The amount of the sum payable by the Second Respondent under section 167 is:a. £3,228 in the case of P Mooreb. £3,497 in the case of R Moorec. £4,842 in the case of D Sutherland[5]On a complaint against the Second Respondent under section 188 ERA for payments under section 182 of that Act, the Tribunal declares that the Second Respondent ought to make the following payments: 2 In the case of P Moore:a. Arrears of pay under section 184(1)(a) ERA of three weeks in the amount of £1,614b. Notice pay under section 184(1)(b) in the amount of £3,228c. Holiday pay under section 184(1)(c) in the amount of £3,228 In the case of R Moore: a. Arrears of pay under section 184(1)(a) ERA of three weeks in the amount of £1,614 b. Notice pay under section 184(1)(b) in the amount of £3,228 c. Holiday pay under section 184(1)(c) in the amount of £3,228 In the case of D Sutherland: a. Arrears of pay under section 184(1)(a) ERA of three weeks in the amount of £1,614 b. Notice pay under section 184(1)(b) in the amount of £3,228 c. Holiday pay under section 184(1)(c) in the amount of £3,228[6]The total of the amounts payable by the Second Respondent are:a. £11,298 in the case of P Mooreb. £11,567 in the case of R Moorec. £12,912 in the case of D Sutherland