Unpaid Wages Claim Dismissed by Employment Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Case No: 1401224/2025 1401355/2025 1401361/2025 1401383/2025

---1---

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

BETWEEN Claimants

Respondent [NAME] (C1) [NAME] (C2) [NAME] (C3) [NAME] (C4)

[COMPANY] (IN ADMINISTRATION) ([NAME])

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS AND TRADE (R2)

JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

HELD AT: BRISTOL ON: 8TH MAY 2026

EMPLOYMENT JUDGE MR P CADNEY (SITTING ALONE) MEMBERS:

APPEARANCES:-

FOR THE CLAIMANTS:[redacted] NO ATTENDANCE

FOR THE RESPONDENT:[redacted] NO ATTENDANCE ([NAME]) NO ATTENDANCE (R2)

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the tribunal is that:- i) The claimants’ claims against [NAME] and R2 are dismissed.

---2--- Reasons

Claims

1. By these claims the claimants all bring claims for unpaid wages and/or holiday pay and redundancy pay and notice pay arising from the termination of their employment when the first respondent ceased to trade and entered administration.

2. First respondent – The administrators entered responses to all four claims stating that the claimants were zero hour contract casual workers and not employees; and that they had no objection to the claims proceeding. They separately indicated that they did not intend to attend any tribunal hearings and [NAME] has not been represented today.

3. Second respondent – [NAME] accepts that [NAME] is insolvent, but contends that the claims are premature in that no claim has been made to the RPS; and that it has not yet formed an opinion as to whether any sums are owed by [NAME]. Similarly it does not intend to be represented at the hearing. [NAME]’s position is slightly difficult to understand given that in an email of 7th February 2025 the claimants’ claims were rejected on the basis that the contracts were not contracts of service; and that the claimnt’s contentions that the contracts did not capture the reality of the relationship was for the an Employment Tribunal to determine, and advised the claimants to appeal the rejection to the Employment Tribunal. On the face of it that would appear to suggest that the Secretary of State had formed a concluded view as to its liability.

4. Claimants – The claimants all contend that they were in reality employees of the first respondent and are entitled to all the sums claimed. Whilst in my judgement that position is certainly arguable on the basis set out in the claim forms, the tribunal would need to hear evidence and make a judgment as to the issue. The Notice of Hearing for this hearing gave directions for Schedules of Loss, disclosure, agreement of a bundle and exchange of witness statements. As set out above both respondents had already indicated that they were not intending to participate. The claimants have not provided any documents or witness statements to support their claims, despite the directions summarised above, and despite being reminded by email to supply any documents they wished to rely on; and have not attended this hearing.

5. It follows that there is no evidence before the tribunal to support the claims and in the absence of the claimants, no possibility of taking any oral evidence. It follows that the claimants’ claims are bound to be dismissed.

---3---

_______________________ EMPLOYMENT JUDGE CADNEY

Dated: 8th May 2026

Judgment sent to parties on 21 May 2026