Ms K Bean and Others v Beauty Educators Ltd: 3313761/2023 and Others
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims of the second and third Claims are struck out as they have not been actively pursued.[2]The first claimant’s claim is stayed for six months to allow her to make an application to restore the Respondent company to the register, the company having been dissolved on 28 January 2025. Case No: 3313761-3/23REASONS
[1]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent until 11 July 2023. By an ET1 presented on 1 December 2023 following a period of early conciliation between 16 and 17 July 2023, she claims that her wages for June and July were largely unpaid, or sums paid via paypal were recouped, and that she was not provided with a mobile phone as had been promised leading to large expenses on her personal phone.[2]The Claimant completed a multiple claim form, stating that Kavya Ganesh and Krystal Parkins had also suered deductions from their wages. By letter dated 16 December 2024 the second and third claimants were directed to write to the Tribunal copying the respondent to confirm their employment dates. They did not respond to this letter and have had no contact with the tribunal whatsoever.[3]No ET3 has been received in this matter, and indeed there has been no correspondence whatsoever from the Respondent. A search of Companies House at the time of the claim form was received confirmed that the registered address of the Respondent was the address which was given in the ET1. The sole director is Katie Nixon. However, a search of Companies House records carried out by me today shows that the company was dissolved on 28 January 2025.[4]All three claimants and the Respondent were sent, by letter dated 13 February 2025, notice of the final hearing today and directions to prepare for the hearing. None of them complied with the directions. The first claimant resides in Canada - she applied for this hearing to take place virtually and by letter dated 11 April 2025 was told that application had been granted. The link for the CVP hearing was sent on 22 April 2025, as was a link for the document upload centre. The Claimant had not joined the hearing by 10.50am, at which point I directed the virtual hearing room be closed. It may be that due to time dierences between the UK and Canada, the Claimant had not seen the link (though the notice of hearing had stated that the hearing was to commence at 10am); I am satisfied that the first claimant is seeking to pursue her claim.[5]As the Respondent company has been legally dissolved, it no longer exists and the first claimant may not continue with her claim unless the Respondent is restored to the Register of Companies. Any application to restore the company must be made to the High Court (not to the tribunal). With this document will be a letter containing a link has to how that process can be commenced.[6]If the company is restored, the issues for the tribunal in this case will be the following:a. Was the Claim Form presented within the time limit provided for in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The claimant made a prompt report to ACAS within the statutory time limit such that the three month time limit was extended by one day. The three month primary limitation period therefore ended on 11 October 2023. The claim was not presented until 1 Case No: 3313761-3/23 December 2023. The claimant states that she was too fearful to present the claim, having been the subject of threats by Katie Nixon (also known as Kate Bell and “Savannah”), the owner of the Respondent.b. If so, what wages were properly payable to the Claimant for June and July 2024 (section 13 ERA)? i. How much did the claimant receive? ii. What is the shortfall?c. Was the claimant contractually entitled to a mobile telephone? i. If so, was this provided? ii. If not, did the claimant incur expenses on her own mobile? In what amount? iii. Are these sums “properly payable” to the claimant?d. Were any other sums payable to the Claimant by virtue of a relevant provision of her contract? If so, did the Respondent fail to pay an amount due?[7]As set out above, this claim is now stayed for six months. Approved by: