No attendance For the v Ms K Trueman, director — 2023

The claimant did not attend the 15 February 2023 hearing, saying she was in hospital to have her baby. The tribunal also noted that the respondent's response had been rejected as late, and that it had not been read at the Rule 26 stage, so the time-limit issues were not identified earlier. The tribunal decided to proceed on the papers and exercised its discretion under Rule 47 to dismiss the claim.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were for notice pay, holiday pay, and redundancy payment. It held that the holiday pay and notice pay complaints were out of time unless the claimant could show it was not reasonably practicable to present them earlier, and it noted that she had not contacted ACAS within the applicable time limit to obtain an extension. It also observed that the notice pay claim was likely to have little or no value because the claimant appeared to have continued working.

On the redundancy payment claim, the tribunal said that on the papers it was likely there had been a transfer of the business after the landlord changed the locks, because the claimant obtained new keys, operated from the premises, used the salon products, and looked after the customers. The tribunal indicated that any liability for redundancy payment was likely to have transferred to the transferee, identified as the claimant herself, or possibly the landlord, and that the landlord might need to be joined if the case continued. Balancing the claimant's reason for non-attendance, the time-limit and TUPE issues, and the burden on the parties and tribunal resources, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was fairer and more proportionate than a warning or deposit order.