Mr W Banaras v Mr T A Khan T/a Maxivision Optical Centre: 6003404/2024
REASONS
[1]This file came before me today at a final hearing, there being no response to the claim from the named respondent – Maxivision Optical Centre.[2]There was sufficient information on the file to determine the claims, subject to the position of the respondent (sole trader), limited company or otherwise, being made clear.[3]I was told that the respondent had told the claimant he was a sole trader, and that the trading name was used on documents.[4]A legal officer had checked the position on company’s house and could find no employer registered as a company at the respondent’s operating address. Case No 6003404/2024[5]The claimant told me that while he described his claims in the narrative, he did not realise he should also have ticked the boxes – or words to that effect. For the reasons in my order to the extent permission to amend is required, I granted it – I was in fact clear that the claims were discernible in the claim form.[6]The sums awarded are those set out in the claim form save that the claimant had made an error of calculation which became apparent today.[7]In the absence of any response by the return date it is in the interests of justice in the round to give Judgment in accordance with Rule 21. Employment Judge JM Wade Date: 9 December 2024 Public access to employment tribunal judgments and, where provided, reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. A practice direction governs recording of Tribunal proceedings.