Ms L Fogg v Argos DHL — 2022

Ms L Fogg did not attend the hearing on 15 September 2022 and was not represented. The tribunal made practicable enquiries, including telephone calls from 10.00am to 10.15am, but received no reply. Employment Judge Quill therefore began the hearing at 10.15am and considered whether to proceed in her absence under Rule 47.

The claim had been presented against “Argos DHL”, while the respondent’s solicitors appeared for DHL Services Ltd and said there was no such entity as “Argos DHL”. The judgment notes that the claim form and ACAS early conciliation certificate used different respondent descriptions and addresses, but the judge did not need to decide those issues because the claimant was absent. The judge also noted that the claim appeared to concern wages allegedly owing for the period 2 December 2019 to 23 May 2020.

The tribunal recorded that some payslips were in the bundle, including documents up to 23 May 2020, a final June adjustment including holiday entitlement, and a later payslip showing net £16.57 in November 2020. The respondent also asserted, though not documented in the bundle, that a further £160.11 had been paid after the claim was issued and that the claimant had been paid in full.

The tribunal decided not to postpone the hearing. It held that it could not make a fair decision in the claimant’s absence on whether to accept the respondent’s response, because that would require deciding whether DHL Services Ltd was her employer. It also could not decide liability and remedy because the claim form contained no details of the sums alleged to be outstanding. Given the absence, the lack of response to recent correspondence, and the claimant’s failure to attend or seek postponement, the tribunal dismissed the claim without requiring the respondent to incur further expense.