Ms Yudi Daniela Flores Garcia v Innoventive Limited; and 2 others — 2022

The claimant, Ms Yudi Daniela Flores Garcia, brought proceedings that were listed as an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The claim form named Innoventive Limited and The Amita Corporation Limited as respondents, but the respondents’ evidence indicated that the claimant had dealt instead with Innoventive Property Services Limited. The tribunal noted that Innoventive Property Services Limited had been added as a third respondent, but it was not named on any early conciliation certificate and the claim had neither been rejected nor permitted to proceed under rule 12A(2).

The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not complied with the case management order attached to the notice of hearing dated 20 December 2021. She did not file or serve any documents or witness statement, and she did not attend the public hearing by video on 21 July 2022. The tribunal clerk tried to make contact through the claimant’s former union representative, but no useful information was obtained about her whereabouts or intention to attend.

In those circumstances, Employment Judge Chapman QC struck out the claim pursuant to rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The written decision states that, alternatively, the claim was dismissed for non-attendance under rule 47. The judgment does not determine the underlying wages issue on its merits and does not record any monetary award.