Ms K-A Goodridge v J Wardle: 6026739/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure following the claimant’s failure to attend the hearing.REASONS
[1]This is a claim for a statutory redundancy payment. According to the claim form, submitted on 17 July 2025, Ms Goodridge worked at a nursery for over seven years until her employment ended on 3 April 2025. The claim form did not however give the name and address of the nursery however, it gave the name of a Mr John Wardle.[2]That contrasted with the early conciliation certificate which gave the name of the prospective respondent as Youngstars Nurseries (Addlestone) Limited. There was also a different address.[3]In those circumstances the claim should not have been accepted at all but it slipped through the net and was accepted in error.[4]No response was submitted to the claim for the simple reason that it never came to Mr Wardle’s attention. He does not live at the address provided, which is that of a Methodist Church, presumably the venue for the nursery, which has now closed.[5]The file was reviewed by an Employment Judge in November last year and a letter was sent to Ms Goodridge on 26th asking her to confirm the full and correct name of her former employer. She did not respond within the 14 days allowed and a further letter was sent to her on 29 December to say that a Legal Officer Page 1 of 3 was considering striking out the claim because it has not been actively pursued. This time she was told to write to the Tribunal by 5 January 2026 if she objected to that proposal. She has not however done so.[6]She has now failed to attend this hearing. However, Mr Wardle did attend. He had been contacted by ACAS shortly before Christmas and so became aware of the claim. He contacted the Tribunal for details and so obtained a link for today’s video hearing.[7]According to the records at Companies House, there was a proposal for a voluntary striking off of the company from the register. Mr Wardle explained that this was suspended following an objection from HMRC to whom some money is owed and it is expected that that debt will be cleared this month and the company will be struck off.[8]Had Ms Goodridge responded to the earlier correspondence and attended the hearing it may well be that the claim would have been reserved on the correct employer and this hearing re-listed. In practice however, any statutory redundancy payment which has not already been paid is likely to be met by the Redundancy Payment Service.[9]There is therefore little purpose to be served by the continuation of these proceedings. Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure provides that a claim may be dismissed where a claimant fails to attend provided that reasonable enquiries are made of the claimant. The Tribunal clerk telephoned her before the hearing began without success.[10]For completeness, if it is shown that there is an outstanding statutory redundancy payment due from this company, then the sum in question, given the figures set out in the claim form, is £1300.25. Her age at the date of dismissal was 35. She had seven years complete service and so her statutory redundancy payment would be seven weeks’ pay. The monthly figure of £804.92 corresponds to a weekly sum of £185.75 and so seven weeks’ pay amounts to £1300.25.[11]That sum, or any outstanding part of it, may be claimed from the Redundancy Payment Service, subject to any time limits or other requirements of that scheme. The claim against Mr Wardle however is dismissed.