Ms Y Lamoso Portansany v Ingrid Kraftchenko Limited and 1 other — 2021

The claim was for £700 wages said to be due for seamstress work done in February 2021 at a rate of £100 per day. The First Respondent did not present a timely ET3, and the tribunal refused her informal application for an extension of time after finding she had been aware of the proceedings by at least 29 October 2021 and had received the ET1 again on 3 December 2021. The tribunal therefore proceeded under Rule 21.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's bank evidence and found that no £700 payment had been made to her Barclays account. It also found that the First Respondent had given inconsistent explanations about payment, including a late assertion that the claimant had been paid in cash, which differed from the draft ET3 stating that payment had been made by telephone banking on 23/03/2021. On the evidence before it, the tribunal was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the sum remained due.

The tribunal also checked Companies House and found that the Second Respondent was incorporated only on 24/03/2021. It concluded that the First Respondent alone was the claimant's employer for the seven-day period of work between 11 and 19 February 2021. Judgment was therefore entered against the First Respondent for £700, and the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed.