Employment Judge BeyzadeNot represented for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 1 August 2023
JUDGMENT
The complaints that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and redundancy payment are struck out.
REASONS
[1]The claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and non payment of a redundancy payment.[2]Section 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring those complaints.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment are struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment and will proceed to hearing 01 August 2023. Employment Judge Beyzade 28 July 2023 CASE NUMBER: 3200002/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms R Bosakwa Respondent: Elizabeth Cardy Heard: East London Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 01st August 2023 Before: Employment Judge Codd Appearances For the Claimant: Did not attend For the Respondent: Did not attend[1]The claimant issued an ET1 against the respondent, which was received on the 03rd January 2023. That claim included claims for unfair dismissal as well as notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid wages. CASE NUMBER: 3200002/2023[2]On the 28th July 2023, after issuing a strike out warning Employment Judge Beyzade struck out the claim for unfair dismissal under S108 and S155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[3]Despite receiving a strike out warning, no correspondence was received from the claimant.[4]The hearing was listed before me today and the claimant was on notice of this. At 07.52am she indicated that she would not be attending the hearing due to family reasons affecting her mental health. She also stated: “Furthering to this - I’ve contacted the insolvency practitioner dealing with the case and will be seeking wages through the government instead.”[5]It appears on the face of the claim that the claimant may have been employed by Sweet Nothing Bakehouse Ltd (a company in voluntary liquidation), however, without proper evidence in support of her claim and without the claimant’s presence at the hearing, it is not possible to verify the circumstances.[6]As it appears that the claimant is now pursuing support via the government insolvency fund and has not attended today’s hearing, I conclude that she has abandoned these proceedings. I therefore find that it is appropriate to strike the proceedings out under Rule 37, as they are not being actively pursued by the claimant.