Mr O Akinwande v Skilled Careers Ltd and Sapphire Accounting Ltd: 6045241/2025
REASONS
[1]Neither respondent had presented an ET3 response to the claim. Rule 22(3) was applied. Mr Stevens for R2 apologised and said there had been a misunderstanding over use of the portal to provide an ET3.[2]The Tribunal does not issue a ‘default judgment’. It has to be satisfied that the claimant has been brought correctly (presented on the correct claim form and in time) and that it is pursued against the correct respondent.[3]The claimant did not comply with the Tribunal’s Order of the 17 December 2025. He therefore relied upon his ET1 claim form. He had included a statement of truth in the claim form and he had also referred to relevant legal authorities. That indicated a level of understanding of the process of bringing a claim in the Tribunal.[4]As the claimant has not complied with the Tribunal’s Order of the 17 December 2025, it is not clear what he expected the Tribunal to do in respect of his claim at this final hearing. Case number: 6045241/2025[5]The claimant has presented a claim against two respondents. Named as Skilled Careers Ltd (06828018) and named as such in the Acas certificate. And, Sapphire Accounting Ltd (08612257), named in the Acas certificate as ‘Shappire Group, Sapphire Accounting Ltd’. There is an entity called Sapphire Group Limited on the Companies House register, however it does not appear to have anything to do with R2.[6]In the narrative in box 8.2 of the claim form, the claimant has referred to ‘SASER ltd trading as Sapphire Contracting’ and he stated they were responsible for processing and issuing payment. SASER Ltd is a separate limited company (09896943), although it has the same registered office address as R2 and appears to be part of a group of companies.[7]The claimant’s own case is therefore that SASER Ltd was responsible for processing and issuing payment and he has not brought a claim against it.[8]The claim appears to have been brought against the wrong legal entities and as such, there is no valid claim against R1 or R2.[9]Furthermore, as the claimant has not complied with the Tribunal’s Order, his claim could not proceed at this hearing, even if he had named the correct respondent.[10]The claim fails and is dismissed. Approved by: