Cases1806473/2023

Claimant v South Elmsall Community Facilities Ltd

26 February 2024Before Employment Judge AyreLeedsremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£17,919

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

At the hearing on 26 February 2024, the tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded on the evidence presented. The respondent did not attend the hearing as they had failed to file a response to the claim, having not updated their registered office address at Companies House.

Wrongful Dismissalsucceeded

At the hearing on 26 February 2024, the tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim well founded on the evidence presented. The respondent did not attend the hearing as they had failed to file a response to the claim.

Facts

The claimant brought claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal which succeeded on 26 February 2024 when the respondent failed to attend the hearing. The respondent had not filed a response because correspondence was sent to their registered office at 122 Westfield Lane, which they had vacated in 2019 but failed to update at Companies House until March 2024. The respondent applied for reconsideration after being contacted by Peninsula Business Services in March 2024, claiming they had no notice of the proceedings.

Decision

The tribunal refused the application for reconsideration, finding the respondent's failure to receive correspondence was due entirely to its own culpable default in not updating its registered office at Companies House for five years. The claimant's representatives had acted properly throughout by serving documents at the registered office and attempting to obtain alternative contact details. In balancing the interests of justice, the tribunal found the public interest in finality of litigation and the prejudice to the claimant outweighed any injustice to the respondent.

Practical note

A respondent's culpable default in failing to maintain accurate records at Companies House will not justify setting aside a judgment in the interests of justice, even where the respondent had no actual notice of proceedings.

Award breakdown

Legal authorities cited

Ebury Partners Ltd v Acton Davis 2023 EAT 40Outasight VB Ltd v Brown UKEAT/0253/14Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 652

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 70Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 71

Case details

Case number
1806473/2023
Decision date
26 February 2024
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister