Restaurant worker's redundancy claims dismissed after employer unaware of proceedings
A restaurant employee's unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims were dismissed after the tribunal found the employer was unaware of the original proceedings. The original £8,721 wages award was revoked.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #reconsideration
- #service-of-proceedings
- #restaurant-worker
- #unfair-dismissal
- #redundancy-pay
Key facts
- The claimant worked at the Why Not Restaurant operated by the respondent.
- The respondent ceased operating the restaurant in January 2018 and gave up the premises.
- The original judgment of 10 June 2019 awarded the claimant £8,721 for unlawful deduction of wages.
- The respondent claimed he was unaware of the proceedings until bailiffs arrived in August 2021.
- The tribunal found on balance that the respondent was not aware of the proceedings and revoked the original judgment.
- At the subsequent hearing on 3 January 2023, the claimant's unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims were dismissed, but other claims remain.
Timeline
-
Restaurant ceased operation
The respondent ceased operating the Why Not Restaurant and gave up the business premises.
-
Keys handed back
Keys to the restaurant were handed back and passed to a new tenant.
-
Company strike-off application
An application was made to strike Why Not Restaurant Limited off the register.
-
Notice of Claim sent
The Notice of Claim letter was addressed to the restaurant address.
-
Notice of Hearing sent
A Notice of Hearing was addressed to the Heydons Road address, but there is no record of re-service.
-
Original judgment
Judgment awarded the claimant £8,721 for unlawful deduction of wages.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The original judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Company dissolved
Why Not Restaurant Limited was dissolved.
-
Bailiffs enforcement
Bailiffs turned up at the respondent's address to enforce the judgment.
-
Reconsideration application
The respondent applied for reconsideration of the original judgment.
-
Reconsideration hearing
Employment Judge Balogun heard the reconsideration application and revoked the original judgment.
-
Final hearing (part)
Employment Judge D Wright dismissed the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims; other claims remain for later hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer was properly served with the claim and, if not, whether the claim form had come to his attention. It also had to determine whether the employee's unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims were well founded.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay. The original judgment awarding £8,721 for unlawful deduction of wages was revoked because the employer was not aware of the proceedings until bailiffs arrived. The employer had ceased operating the restaurant in January 2018 and had given up the premises before the claim was served. The tribunal found that the employer had not been properly served and that the substance of the claim had not come to his attention. The employee's other claims remain to be heard at a later date.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees should ensure their employer's correct address is used when filing a claim, especially if the business has closed.
- Employers who cease trading should update their contact details with the tribunal to avoid default judgments.
- A claim can be revived if the employer was genuinely unaware of proceedings, but the underlying claims still need to be proven.
- Redundancy and unfair dismissal claims require the employer to have been operating at the time of dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of proper service of proceedings in employment tribunal claims. The employee worked at the Why Not Restaurant, which ceased operating in January 2018. When the employee brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages, the claim was sent to the restaurant address, but the employer had already given up the premises. The employer only became aware of the claim when bailiffs arrived in August 2021 to enforce a default judgment.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the default judgment by ensuring his contact details were up to date with the tribunal after the business closed. However, the tribunal accepted that he was not at fault for not receiving the claim. The employee, on the other hand, could have checked the employer's current address before filing. The tribunal revoked the original judgment and later dismissed the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims because the employer had ceased trading, meaning there was no genuine redundancy situation and no dismissal by the employer.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that even if a default judgment is set aside, the underlying claims still need to be proven on their merits. Employees should be aware that if their employer has stopped trading, claims for unfair dismissal or redundancy pay may not succeed. It also shows that tribunals will give employers the benefit of the doubt if they were genuinely unaware of proceedings, but only if the evidence supports that.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out as five months late
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claims because they were presented five months late, and refused to extend time even after the employee submitted additional medical evidence.
Claim struck out after repeated adjournments and lack of preparation
An employment tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim after the claimant failed to prepare for two hearings and made a last-minute adjournment application based on a minor surgery. The claimant was also ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Unfair dismissal win after employer ignored tribunal orders
A former employee's widow secured £16,821 in compensation after Lodge Security Limited failed to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders, leading to the response being struck out.
Reconsideration refused: former employee's claim of fabricated photos failed
A former employee who alleged that photographic evidence was fabricated has had her application for reconsideration refused. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the original decision being changed.