Claimant v Mach Recruitment Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal proceeded in the absence of both parties under Rule 47. The claimant failed to provide a witness statement or supporting documentary evidence despite promising written submissions. The tribunal considered the claim form, correspondence, and the respondent's response, and determined the claim was not well-founded.
Facts
The claimant alleged he was defrauded of holiday hours by the respondent recruitment agency. He claimed in correspondence that several holiday hours were missing and that all hours worked were documented on payslips. Neither party attended the hearing conducted via CVP. The claimant promised to submit written statements but failed to provide any witness statement or supporting documentary evidence.
Decision
The tribunal proceeded in the absence of both parties under Rule 47. Having considered the claim form, correspondence from the claimant, and the respondent's response, Employment Judge McTigue found the holiday pay complaint was not well-founded and dismissed the claim.
Practical note
A claimant must provide substantive evidence to support their claim; mere assertions in correspondence without witness statements or supporting documentation are insufficient to establish a well-founded complaint.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6012865/2025
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No