In person For the v Christie Singham — 2020

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's accepted claims were for arrears of pay and holiday pay, but the claim form did not make clear how those sums had been calculated. On 30 November 2019 the claimant was directed to provide a table showing the net sums claimed and how they were calculated, and on 9 January 2020 an unless order was made stating that the claim would stand dismissed unless she replied by 16 January 2020. There was no response within that deadline. A further letter was sent on 8 February 2020 asking again for the table, and the claimant's email of 17 February 2020 referred to an agreed salary of £28,000 per annum and to having been paid only £500, but it still did not provide the information required by the tribunal.

The hearing was listed for one hour on the basis that the ordered information would have been provided. On the hearing date the claimant telephoned the tribunal to say she had to go and see her grandfather who was about to pass away and asked for an adjournment. The respondent, Mr Singham, opposed an adjournment. The Employment Judge refused the adjournment application and struck out the claims because of the claimant's failure to comply with the tribunal's order.

The judge also heard evidence from Mr Singham, who produced bank accounts showing payments made to the claimant. He said those payments matched the evidence in Mr Pawel Janakiewicz's witness statement and that the lower amounts were because the claimant did not work the hours set out in her contract, so she was paid pro rata. He said the final payment of £1,200 included two weeks' holiday. The tribunal accepted that evidence and said that, on that basis as well, it would have dismissed the claims because the claimant had not proved that outstanding salary or holiday pay was owed.