T Manavalan v Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: 2305191/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well founded. The respondent shall forthwith pay the claimant £1235 as damages for breach of contractREASONS
[1]At a Case Management Hearing on 1 February 2024, following careful consideration, Employment Judge T R Smith determined that it was necessary, proportionate, and just to make a Deposit Order (pursuant to r.39 of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (as amended)) requiring the Claimant to pay a deposit of £500 in order to continue his claim for automatically unfair dismissal.[2]The Claimant was granted a period of 28 days from the date on which the Order was sent to the parties to pay the deposit – and thereby satisfy the Order.[3]The Order was sent to the parties on 26 February 2024. The Claimant, therefore, had until 25 March 2024 to pay the deposit.[4]On 8 March 2024, in a lengthy email, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the Order and that the deadline for satisfying it was approaching. He then entered a lengthy exposition of what he described as failings by the Respondent. None of which were material to the question of whether he had, had not, or would – as required – satisfy the Deposit Order.[5]In that email he asks for an extension of time in which to pay the deposit to “…a week after the Respondent has complied with the data subject access request [DSAR]…”. I note that he had, earlier in the email, complained that the Respondent was in breach of data protection law by not complying with his DSAR within 2 months. He goes on to conflate his DSAR with the perfectly regular case management orders made by the learned Judge on 1 February in relation to disclosure for the case before this Tribunal.[6]For the avoidance of doubt, Judge Smith’s orders were not a remedy for any alleged failure by the Respondent to answer the DSAR of the Claimant. They could not be since this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in such matters.[7]For the further avoidance of doubt, the conjoining of this Tribunal’s Deposit Order with the Respondent’s obligations under any data protection law is entirely without merit.[8]I refuse the application for an extension of time for the Claimant to comply with the Deposit[9]As the Claimant did not pay the Deposit Order in the time required of him, the claim for 2305191-2023 Mr Tindo Manavalan -v- Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: 12-04-2024 Judgment Page 2 of 2 (automatic) unfair dismissal is struck out under r.39(4) of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (as amended).[10]That being the only extant claim, the case is closed subject to what follows.[11]Nothing in this judgment shall have any effect on the judgment entered by the learned Judge on 1 February 2024 in respect of a breach of contract in relation to notice pay. Judge M Aspinall (sitting as an