Ms B Alexander and others v Ms S Alexander and Mr P Johnson T/a St Kitts Herbery (A Firm): 1402342/2021 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 2022 |
| Date | 18 April 2022 |
| Citation | 1402342/2021 and others |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 09 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Lead Case No. 1402342/2021, 1402343/2021 & 1402344/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: Ms B Alexander (1) - 1402342/2021
Mr A Alexander (2) - 1402343/2021
Miss M Alexander (3) - 1402344/2021
Respondents: Ms S Alexander (1)
Mr P Johnson (2)
Both Trading As St Kitts Herbery (A Firm)
Heard at: Bristol (By VHS)
On: 21 and 22 March 2022 and in chambers on 23 March 2022
Before: Employment Judge Cuthbert
Appearances:
For the Claimants: Mr S Robillard - Solicitor
For Respondent (1): In Person
For Respondent (2): Mr G Probert - Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The second respondent was and is properly a party to the proceedings.
2. The claimants’ claims for redundancy payments, notice pay and holiday pay
against the respondents fail and are dismissed.
3. The claimants’ claims for unlawful dedu ctions from wages are dismissed upon
withdrawal.
Lead Case No. 1402342/2021, 1402343/2021 & 1402344/2021
2
REASONS
Introduction
1. The hearing was conducted with the parties attendi ng by VHS. It was he ld in
public. It was conducted in that manner without objection by the parties and
because to do so met the overriding objective.
2. The claimants were represented by Mr Robillard, a solicitor; the first respondent
appeared in person; and the second respondent was represented by Mr Probert
of counsel. I explained the tribunal hearing process at various stages during the
case to the first respondent, in view of her not being legally represented, and
she had the same opportunity to question the other witnesses and to make
closing submissions as the other parties.
3. The hearing was listed for three days, due to the rather unusual nature of the
case, the issues raised within it and the number of witnesses (five), with the first
and second respondents taking opposing positions on the claims brought, for
reasons which are set out below, entailing three sets of representation.
4. I had heard all of the oral evidence and the parties’ closing submissions by the
end of the second day but I was uncertain as to whether I would be in a position
to give oral judgment by the end of the third day, in view of the unusual nature
of the issues arising , and so I explained to the parties at the end of the second
day that I would reserve judgment in the circumstances and use the third day of
the listing for deliberation. I also took the view that the parties would be likely to
request written reasons for my eventual decision in any event, given the broader
backdrop to the present proceedings.
Claims and Issues
5. The background to the claims was a very unusual one. The claimants, Betty
Alexander (C1), Albert Alexander (C2) and Minnie Alexander (C3) are siblings
and their parents are their mother, Susan Alexander, the first respondent (R1),
and Paul Johnson, the second respondent (R2).
6. R1 and R2 were the only two partners in a business trading by the name of St
Kitts Herbery (SKH).
7. R1 and R2 were also married to each other but were separated and in the
process of divorcing at the relevant time (and I understood that divorce process
was still ongoing at the time of the full hearing in the present case). The
claimants were the only employees of SKH at the relevant time.
8. The claimants, in their ET1, ticked the relevant boxes indicating claims for
redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay; the accompanying
Particulars of Claim set out specific sums claimed by each claimant for
redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay for each claimant but made no
reference to any claim for unpaid wages being pursued or sums sought in
respect of it.
To continue reading
Request your trial