Mr J Coote v BPMS02 Ltd (formerly Alamo Blinds & Shutters Ltd) (In liquidation): 3302986/2024 Mr J Coote v BPMS02 Ltd (formerly Alamo Blinds & Shutters Ltd) (In liquidation): 3302986/2024
JUDGMENT
The complaints of unfair dismissal (ordinary and automatic) are dismissed. The complaint of wrongful dismissal (failure to pay notice pay) pay is dismissed. The complaint of failure to pay holiday pay is dismissed. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages (arrears of pay) is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The case was listed for a final hearing by video over four days on the 28, 29, 30 and 31 July 2025. The Notice of Hearing was properly served and I am satisfied that both parties were aware of the hearing. Neither party attended the first day of the hearing.[2]On the 24 July 2025,the Claimant was contacted by the Listing Clerk who was seeking to establish if the Claimant had any documents for the hearing. I understand that the Claimant stated that he was waiting for the Respondent to send the bundles as per the case management order. I understand that he was asked to attend the hearing in any event so that he could to explain the situation but he stated that he would not attend the hearing if there was no bundle from the Respondent as he could not prepare.[3]The Claimant wrote to the Tribunal on the 25 July 2025 to request that the hearing be postponed on the basis that he had not been provided with the information necessary to proceed with the hearing and as the Respondent had not complied with orders previously made.[4]On the morning of the 28 July 2025 at 9.18am, an email was sent to the Claimant, at my request, to inform him that he should attend the listed hearing at 10am to discuss his application for an adjournment. I understand from the Tribunal Clerk that the Claimant may have briefly joined the video platform before 10am but then left again before I was present on the platform. I asked that enquiries be made of the Claimant to establish why he had not attended the hearing and attempts were made to contact him by telephone. As he did not answer his telephone, a voicemail message was left for him.[5]At 10.44 the Claimant was sent an email in the following terms: “Employment Judge Boyes has asked that I write to you in the following terms: Your claim is listed for a four day final hearing which was to begin today at 10am. This hearing was arranged in September 2024. It is noted that you wrote to the Tribunal on the 25 July 2025 to request that your hearing be adjourned due to the Respondent not having complied with directions. No decision has yet been made on that adjournment application. If you wish to pursue your claim then you are required to attend the hearing that is listed to start today. It is now 10.37am. The hearing will be adjourned briefly and will restart at 11.30am. If you fail to attend at 11.30am then your claim may be dealt with in your absence or struck out. If you are having difficulties connecting to the video platform then please inform the Tribunal clerk on the email or telephone number provided explaining the difficulties that you are having.”[6]The Claimant did not join the video platform for the hearing at 11.30am, nor did he contact the Tribunal to explain why he could not attend or to say that he was having any technical difficulties. I then asked that a further telephone call be made to the Claimant and a message was again left for him to call the Tribunal.[7]During the course of the day on the 28 July 2025, I asked that further checks be undertaken to establish if the Claimant had contacted the Tribunal to explain his failure to attend. There was nothing to suggest that he had done so.[8]The Respondent changed its name to BPMS02 Limited on the 11 March 2025. The Respondent is in voluntary liquidation. Winding up commenced on 27 March 2025 and an Insolvency practitioner has been appointed.[9]I asked that contact also be made with the Respondent to establish if anyone was intending to attend for or on behalf of the Respondent. A response was received from Mitesh Soma who said that he was no longer a Director and that it was his understanding was that proceedings would be stayed automatically because the company was in liquidation. I therefore directed that the Respondent be sent an email in the following terms: “As the company is in voluntary liquidation there is no automatic stay on proceedings. The proceedings continue. The case is listed for a final hearing on 28, 29, 30, 31 July 2025. If you are no longer an officer of the company please ensure, as a matter of urgency, that all relevant correspondence is forwarded to whoever is now the responsible officer(s) and the Insolvency Practitioner who has been appointed.”[10]As there was no attendance at the hearing by either party, I considered rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Rule 47 states that “If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.” I also considered whether to exercise my general case management powers to adjourn the hearing.[11]I am entirely satisfied that the Claimant was properly notified of the hearing and that he was aware of the hearing. This is clear from his telephone conversation with the Tribunal office on the 24 July 2025 and from his email of the 25 July 2025.[12]Numerous attempts were made to contact the Claimant on the 28 July 2025. Despite this he has made no further contact with the Tribunal.[13]I am satisfied that the Claimant chose not to attend the hearing. Whilst he may have had concerns about his lack of preparedness, that does not excuse his non-attendance when it was made clear to him on two occasions that his attendance at the hearing was required. Had he attended it may well be that the Tribunal would have been able to have accommodate any time that he needed to prepare and present his case, particularly as the case had been listed for four days.[14]I considered whether to adjourn the hearing to another date. However, having regard to the interests of fairness and justice and the overriding objective, I did not consider that it was appropriate to do so given the Claimant’s failure to engage with the Tribunal as referred to above and his failure to even attend to apply for an adjournment despite being told that he should do so.[15]In the circumstances, applying rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 all of the Claimant’s complaints are dismissed due to his failure to attend the hearing. Approved by: