J Bruni v Pastan Ltd (in liquidation): 6012496/2024 J Bruni v Pastan Ltd (in liquidation): 6012496/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay are dismissed because the claimant was not employed for at least two years.[2]The remaining claims (pay arrears, notice pay, holiday pay) are struck out because they are not being actively pursued by the claimant.REASONS
[3]In the claimant’s absence, I conclude from the payslips that she was employed by Natsap Limited.[4]I cannot make a judgment against Natsap Limited for pay arrears, notice pay or holiday pay without clarification from the claimant of what is owing. The claimant has not responded to the tribunal for some time. She did not respond to the strike out warning letters in May regarding her unfair dismissal and Case Number: 6012496/2024 redundancy pay claims. She did not reply to the tribunal letter dated 7 August 2025 asking for details of her claim by 14 August 2025. She did not respond to a telephone message left by the clerk yesterday. She did not attend today, despite the clerk sending her joining instructions again and leaving two telephone messages. Although it is possible that the claimant is on holiday as it is August, she was notified of today’s hearing date by Notice of Hearing dated 20 February 2025.[5]The claims against Pastan Limited cannot in any event continue because it is in compulsory liquidation. The claimant would need to obtain the permission of the High Court. Anyway I do not consider that Pastan Limited was her employer.[6]The claims against Mr Ibanez and Mr Fawcett would be dismissed anyway because they are individuals and the claimant was employed by a company.