Mr R Bromke v M Healey T/a The Harcourt Lounge: 6037260/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]Paul Healey trading as the Harcourt Lounge is substituted as the correct Respondent to this claim.REASONS
The Claimant names the Harcourt Lounge as the Respondent in box 2.1 of the claim form. However, the Harcourt Lounge is not a legal person and in box 8.2 the Claimant says he worked at the Harcourt Lounge and that Mr Healey was the owner. Mr Healey has submitted an ET3 response. He says that the “type of employer” is an individual and gives his own name as the contact. I am satisfied that Mr Healey is the correct Respondent (trading as the Harcourt Lounge) and that the claim has come to his attention and been responded to by him.[2]The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages is not contested by the Respondent. Pursuant to Employment Tribunal Rule 22 it is well-founded and succeeds.[3]The Respondent shall pay the Claimant wages for 67.25 hours worked at £12.21 per hour. The total payable is £821.12.