Mr B Craddock v Mr C Peedle and Others: 3328992/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim is adjourned pending discovery of the missing employment tribunal papers, and upon such discovery the matter shall be referred to theREASONS
[1]The claimant appeared in person. The respondent was not present and was not represented. Unfortunately, there were no papers before me and no employment tribunal file. Enquiries were made at both the Watford Employment Tribunal and the Cambridge Employment Tribunal and no file could be found. It is to be hoped that this is only a temporary position.[2]The claimant had not brought a copy of the ET1 claim with him. It was his understanding that no ET3 response had been entered on behalf of the respondent. From the notice of hearing which I did have before me the respondent is named as “Christopher Peedle & Others”. I do not know who those “Others” are, and nor did the claimant.[3]Mr Peedle, the claimant informed me, is an employee of MCB Events Services Limited. The claimant informed me that he worked for the limited Case Number: 3328992/2017 company as a catering assistant between 29 July 2017 and 16 September 2017. He claims he was not paid for that entire period. He was not able to tell me the exact amount of monies he was owed.[4]Without the file, I was unable to ascertain whether or not the correct respondent had been named in these proceedings. It appears it should have been MCB Events Services Limited and not Mr Christopher Peedle in person. It may be that if the file can be found the description of “& Others” might include MCB Events Services Limited.[5]The claimant feared in any event that MCB Events Services Limited may have gone into liquidation, but he was unsure. If the claimant is due any monies, and I make no finding in that regard at this stage, and the properly named respondent has gone into liquidation the claimant might be able to recover his monies through the Secretary of State. Rather than dismiss these proceedings at this stage I direct that further enquiries and searches should be made to find the tribunal’s file, and upon discovery the file is referred to the Regional Employment Judge who shall give further directions in relation to the matter.[1]By a letter dated 5 November 2018 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim 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.