Ms D Hanley v Mrs S Ali: 3314523/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims of unauthorised deductions from earnings and to holiday pay are well-founded.[2]The Claimant has not made a discrimination claim.[3]The Respondent must pay the Claimant 60 hours unlawfully deducted earnings in the net sum of £972, and 65 hours holiday pay in the sum of £975.[4]The Respondent must pay the Claimant the total sum of £1,947 within 14 days. _________________________________ Employment Judge Smail South East Region ____12.03.2020________________ Judgment sent to the parties on ________12.03.2020_______________ Case Number: 3314523/2019 (V) 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Ms D Hanley v Ms S Ali Heard at: Watford by CVP On: 19 February 2021 Before: Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone Appearances For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: In person COVID-19 Statement on behalf of Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals “This has been a remote hearing not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was CVP. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same.”REASONS
[1]It is the claimant’s case that she was employed by the respondent from 6 June 2018 until 6 April 2019. By a claim form presented on 6 May 2019 the claimant claims unauthorised deduction of wages and holiday pay.[2]The early conciliation certificate names the prospective respondent as: “Safeen Ali Shic Beauty Academy” and gives an address at 369A Dunstable Road, Luton, LU4 8BY. Case Number: 3314523/2019 (V) 2[3]The claim form gives the name of the employer as: “Mrs Safeen Ali” with the Luton address.[4]The claim form was sent to Mrs Safeen Ali at the Luton address on 24 May 2019.[5]No response was received by 21 June 2019 and on 17 August 2019 a “Rule 21 judgement – Claim not quantified” letter was sent to the claimant.[6]Following her response, the claimant was asked to confirm the address (including postcode) of where she worked. On 5 October 2019 the claimant provided a Newcastle address, notwithstanding that she had been working in Luton. Nevertheless, form ET1 was re-sent to the Newcastle address on 22 November 2019. That was returned “gone away”.[7]The respondent told me that she first became aware of these proceedings towards the end of 2019/early 2020. She told me that she had moved out of the Luton address and the Newcastle address prior to the dates of service on those addresses. The respondent became aware of these proceedings when the landlord at her Luton address forwarded the correspondence to her accountants who were the registered office of her company, Shic Beauty Academy Limited.[8]The remedy hearing was scheduled for 28 February 2020. There is a file note that records that the respondent telephoned the tribunal saying she had never received the documents and requesting a postponement of the hearing on 28 February as she was heavily pregnant. The postponement request was declined as she had not presented a response.[9]Employment Judge Smail dealt with the remedy hearing on paper and issued his judgment on 28 February 2020, ordering the respondent to pay the claimant the total sum of £1,947.[10]The next contact with the tribunal from the respondent appears to have been on 5 October 2020. She indicates that the company Shic Beauty Academy Limited ceased trading in March 2020 and asserts that that was the entity that employed the claimant. It appears that what galvanised the respondent into action was contact from the bailiffs.[11]There is a file note recording that the respondent called the tribunal on 15 October 2020 quite upset. Employment Judge Smail then directed that the matter be reconsidered.[12]Due to the fact that Employment Judge Smail has moved to Exeter it has not been practicable for him to deal with this reconsideration application. On 10 February 2021 Regional Employment Judge Foxwell directed that it be heard by another Employment Judge.[13]A judgment can be reconsidered under Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal’s (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. Case Number: 3314523/2019 (V) 3[14]The respondent has submitted a number of documents. Included is a payslip dated 1 April 2019 which has upon it: “Shic Beauty Academy Limited”. The claimant has told me that at all times she dealt with the respondent personally who authorised payments and indeed had made the deductions from her pay. There is clearly an issue between the parties as to who the claimant’s employer was. The respondent was aware of these proceedings early in 2020 and it has made no effort to make an application for an extension of time to put in a response. Nevertheless, the respondent has put before me a document which could suggest that the correct employer was not the respondent personally and was the Limited Company Shic Beauty Academy Limited. In my judgment it is necessary in the interests of justice to revoke the judgment to give the respondent the opportunity to put in a response contesting that she was the claimant’s employer.[15]Consequently, I revoke the judgment of Employment Judge Smail dated 28 February 2020 and direct that the proceedings should be re-served on the respondent at the address she has given me today, namely 116 Thumpers, Hemel Hempstead, HP2 5SQ, Safeen.Ali@hotmail.com. _____________________________ Employment Judge Alliott Date: ……09/04/2021……….. Sent to the parties on: 03/05/2021........ THY ............................................................ For the Tribunal Office . Case Number: 3314523/2019 FMH 1 of 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms D Hanley First respondent: Ms S Ali Second Respondent: Chic Beauty Academy Ltd Heard at: Watford (CVP) On: 28 April 2022 Before: Employment Judge Daniels (sitting alone) Appearances: For the claimant: In person For the respondents: In person[1]The claimant was employed by Chic Beauty Academy Ltd at the time the relevant arrears of pay arose.[2]The claim against the first respondent is dismissed as the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any claim as pleaded against her.[3]The second respondent was dissolved on 24 March 2020. As such it no longer exists and since no permission has been sought or granted to restore the company to the register and/or to bring proceedings against such an entity the claims have to be and are hereby dismissed. This judgment concludes the matter.