Mr H Lockwood v Amen Logistics Limited Heard: by CVP — 2024

Mr H Lockwood brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages against Amen Logistics Limited after early conciliation that began on 16 January 2024 and ended on 22 January 2024. In the claim form he said that the deductions totalled £1,100 and that he was entitled to damages of £1,000. The respondent defended the claim and said that it had employed him from 6 November 2023 to 30 December 2023, that he had taken the respondent’s van home and used it for personal use in breach of contract, and that the van was damaged when he hit a curb, leading to damage and recovery costs of £1,500 which the deductions were said to meet in part.

The tribunal recorded repeated non-compliance with case management orders by both parties. Neither complied with the original orders, which caused an earlier listed final hearing to be converted into a case management preliminary hearing. Fresh orders were then made for the hearing on 25 September 2024, requiring the claimant to provide a witness statement and documents by 22 August 2024 and the respondent to provide evidence by 5 September 2024. A further letter on 23 September 2024 asked both parties to confirm compliance; the claimant did not respond and the respondent sent some documents with an apology for non-compliance.

The claimant did not attend the hearing and did not contact the tribunal to explain his absence or seek a postponement. The start of the hearing was delayed to allow time for him to join, but he did not do so. Tribunal staff telephoned the number on the claim form six times and each call went to voicemail. No email or other correspondence was received from him. The respondent attended through Mr Stanley Antwi.

Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the Employment Judge decided not to adjourn because there was no basis to think the claimant would participate if the hearing were postponed. The tribunal noted that he had taken no steps to progress the claim and had sent in no evidence despite being ordered to do so. The claim was therefore dismissed under Rule 47 without a determination of the underlying deductions dispute on the merits.