J Marshall v DND Group Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation): 6003783/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6003783/2024
Between
J MarshallClaimantDND Group Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge Lancaster (now sitting alone on the direction ofNot represented for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 16 June 2025
JUDGMENT
The claim is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The Claimant’s postponement application sent on Thursday 12th June 2025 at 2.44 pm was refused by email sent on Friday 13th June 2025 at 1.44 pm.[2]There has been no further reply to that email, and therefore no information to substantiate the allegation that the Claimant was “unwell”.[3]The fact that the Respondent went into creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 25th January 2025 (which is now reflected in the amendment to their title), which was the Claimant’s alternative ground for requesting a postponement - following his being made aware of this fact when Peninsula came off the record for the Respondent on 9th June 2025 - does not mean the claim cannot proceed. It may, however mean that there is no or little prospect of the Claimant, if successful, recovering any moneys from the Respondent though a claim might possibly now lie to the government insolvency service for some of the sums allegedly owed.[4]The tribunal attempted to contact the Claimant by telephone but he had given an incorrect number on his claim form.[5]There has been a history of late or non-compliance with Orders on the part of the Clamant, and the Respondent’s previous representatives had made applications for strike out or unless orders.[6]The Claimant was on notice, on Employment Judge Bright’s own motion as from 13th May 2025, that his claim was potentially liable to be struck out for non-compliance with case management directions and because it was not being actively pursued.[7]The Claimant did reply to that warning on 19th May 2025, indicating that it was still his intention to proceed. He was reminded by a letter from Employment Judge Maidment sent on 6th June 2025 that it was still his obligation to disclose documents and exchange witness statements.[8]The Claimant has still not provided any documents (neither those that were already sent to him by the Respondents nor any additional ones of his own) or witness statements in preparation for this final hearing, and he was also reminded in the Tribunal’s email of 13th June 2025 that the strike out warning remained to be determined.[9]The claim for a statutory redundancy payment has no prospect of success, and ought to have been stuck out together with the unfair dismissal claim because of lack of qualifying service. Even if the Claimant was an employee he cannot claim for breach of contract in respect of the provision of accommodation as this is excluded by articles 3 (b) and 5 (b) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994.[10]If the Claimant was an employee or a worker, he may claim for arrears of wages or holiday pay. His claim for notice pay, only if an employee, would be limited to 1 week, and he in fact obtained alternative employment after 6 days. He cannot, absent any valid claim for unfair dismssal, recover for future loss of earnings.[11]The complaints of discrimination, which may be brought if the Claimant was an employee as defined by the Equality Act 2010. require him to establish the factual basis for such a claim and he has not provided any evidence in advance of this hearing, which I might consider, nor attended to prosecute his case, even in the absence the Respondent.[12]In all these circumstances I dismiss the claim upon the Claimant having failed to attend. .