The claimant did not attend For the v Ms S Sithanen (HR Manager) — 2021

The claim form presented on 14 January 2021 brought claims for unpaid holiday pay and/or wages and unlawful deduction from wages. At the first final hearing on 6 October 2021, Employment Judge Wright was unable to proceed because it was not clear what sums were said to be owed or how they had been calculated. The case was converted to a case management hearing and the claimant was ordered to set out the amount claimed, the calculations, and the documents relied upon.

For the relisted hearing on 10 January 2022, the claimant applied for a postponement on 31 December 2021 and renewed the application on 7 January 2022, saying her employer would not authorise a day off. The postponement was refused as the application had been made too late and had not been copied to the respondent. The tribunal also told the claimant that, if she did not attend, the hearing could proceed in her absence.

The tribunal decided not to postpone the hearing and proceeded under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations, taking account of the reasons for absence and the overriding objective in rule 2. It considered the additional material sent in by the claimant but found that it was still unclear what was being claimed and how the sums were calculated. There was no evidence from which the tribunal could conclude that the claimant had not been paid monies owed or that monies had been unlawfully deducted, and the burden of proof remained on the claimant. The claims were therefore found not well founded and were dismissed.