Case 2205881/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance For the v Jobs2Go — 2019
- Case reference
- 2205881/2019
- Decision date
- 21 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No appearance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant said she brought claims for holiday pay and notice pay after the insolvency of the company. The tribunal recorded that the claim form was received on 22 December 2019 and that there had been an ACAS Early Conciliation period between 7 November 2019 and 22 November 2019. The claimant had worked for the respondent agency between 20 June 2016 and 28 June 2018.
A hearing was listed for 2 March 2020, but neither party attended. The tribunal noted that there had been no communication from either side and that the claimant did not answer when called on her mobile telephone number. By letter of 20 February 2020, the claimant had been directed to bring her contract of employment and a document setting out how much holiday pay she said she was owed, but she did not attend and did not provide further material at the hearing.
The tribunal checked the named respondent, "Jobs2Go", on Companies House and found that it did not exist and had never been a registered company. It also found that Companies House held records for Jobs To Go Recruitment Limited, but that entity had been dissolved on 21 May 2019 and was therefore no longer a legal entity. On that basis, the tribunal said there was no legal entity identified against which the claim could succeed.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the claim had a reasonable prospect of success and also found that the claimant had not actively pursued it. It considered that the claimant had had a reasonable opportunity to make representations by attending the hearing, but had not done so. The claim was therefore struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (d), with Rule 37(2) also referred to in the reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim was one of the claims the claimant said she was bringing, but the judgment did not determine the merits and struck out the whole claim under Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to a notice pay claim. It did not determine the merits and struck out the whole claim under Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (d)
- Rule 37(2)
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.