A Jersey takeaway business could have its property seized after failing to deliver itself to a Petty Debts Court hearing that saw it ordered to pay nearly £50,000 to three unfairly sacked employees.
Wai Man Lam, Io Kuong Fong and Zhao Hui Chen all appeared in the Petty Debts Court on Wednesday to make claims against Robin Hood Curry House Limited.
The trio had previously been awarded £17,389, £6,726 and £22,012 in compensation respectively, relating to claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid notice pay and failing to provide a contract made in January 2020.
In January 2021, a remedies hearing took place at the Tribunal but Robin Hood didn’t attend.
Pictured: The case came before Assistant Magistrate Peter Harris in the Petty Debts Court on Wednesday.
Robin Hood did not pay any of the awards set by the tribunal and each of the claimants then obtained a judgment against the business in the Petty Debts Court.
The judgments were still not satisfied and were referred to the Viscount for enforcement.
Following contact between the Viscount and Robin Hood, it became apparent that the claimants had brought their claims against the wrong legal entity, having identified their employer on the claim form as Robin Hood (Jersey) Limited.
In April 2021, the Tribunal set aside the judgments from August 2020 and January 2021.
The claimants then amended the identity of the business as well as its registered address on the claim forms, who were sent again to Robin Hood Curry House Limited. No response was filed.
The Employment Tribunal published its final judgment on the compensation and damages owed to the three claimants in July 2021.
With Robin Hood still yet to pay one month on, the matter came up in the Petty Debts Court's Civil Claims Division on Wednesday, with the takeaway business failing to attend.
Presiding, Assistant Magistrate Peter Harris agreed that all three claimants should be paid what they were owed.
In respect of each claim, he also said daily interest could be charged on the outstanding balance and authorised the plaintiffs to "cause the personal property of the Defendant to be arrested and sold", but sales of any such property may only take place with the court's permission unless the Viscount is satisfied that Robin Hood is aware that a distraint has been made.
All judgments of this week's Petty Debts Court session can be found here.
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.