Mr P Yourgov v Proud Group Ltd: 6012772/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim was presented in the London Central Employment Tribunal on 25 September 2024. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. Specifically, the respondent has failed to provide an address within the response (ET3) form. Consequently, the form is rejected and the claim succeeds.[2]The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £849.31 gross.[3]The respondent must pay the claimant £849.31 in total.REASONS
[4]The claimant presented his claim form to the tribunal on 25 September 2024. In it, he claims arrears of pay and outstanding holiday pay covering a period of engagement starting on 13 June 2024 until 26 July 2024.[5]The respondent is in voluntary liquidation. It is the tribunal’s understanding that the liquidator has prepared and filed a response to the tribunal. The first response filed was rejected on 30 October 2024 due to no address being entered on the response form. This was communicated to the liquidator who subsequently responded to say that it was in the liquidator’s view erroneous to insert address onto the form. Employment Judge Atkin directed that the claim should be reserved on the respondent by way of liquidator and that a further opportunity to file and serve a response provided.[6]A further response was provided to the tribunal by the liquidator and that response was in turn placed before the tribunal today. From the tribunal file I can see that a further attempt to file the ET3 and further grounds was made and received by the tribunal on or around 20 February 2025. However, the ET3 form is absent details of the respondent’s address.[7]I have found that the respondent has failed to file an adequate response with the tribunal and, I have determined the claim in the claimant’s favour.[8]I discussed the quantification of the claimant’s claim with him. There is a factual dispute as to the amount of pay the claimant is entitled to. The claimant was engaged by the respondent on a zero hours contract. He says that he has a payslip which identifies the amount of pay he is entitled to. To 10 July 2024. It records the claimant worked 61 hours at a rate of £13 per hour. His payslip tells him that he is owed £849.31 for this period. The claimant confirmed to me that this is what he is owed. He also confirmed to me that he did not work beyond 10 July and that the date of 26 July simply signifies the last eight he was available to work for the respondent.[9]Accordingly, I have determined and found the claimant is owed £849.31 p which the respondent should pay to the claimant within 21 days of the date of this judgment. Approved by: