Mr David Taheri v Car Time Motor Company UK Ltd: 2404604/2019
JUDGMENT
The claimant is ordered to pay a deposit of £750 on or before 25 November 2019 as a condition of proceeding with his claim, which failing his claim will be dismissed without further order.REASONS
By order made on 17 September 2019 the claimant argued that the order was an attempt to violate his human rights. The deposit order was not followed. The claimant was given 14 days to make the relevant payment, which failing the claims will be dismissed. Case Management orders are suspended for 10 days to allow payment to be made. _____________________________ Employment Judge Hoey Date: 12 November 2019 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 13 November 2019 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case number: 2404604/2019 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr David Taheri Respondent: Car Time Motor Company UK Limited UPON a reconsideration of the judgment dated 12 November 2019 (which was issued on 13 November 2019) on the Tribunal’s own initiative under rule 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and without a hearing, it is necessary in the interests of justice to revoke the judgment. The judgment contained an error. It is necessary in the interests of justice to revoke that judgment. The judgment is therefore revoked and a case management order is issued today. JUDGMENT[1]The judgment dated 12 November 2019 and issued on 13 November 2019 is revoked.[2]A case management order is issued today under separate cover _____________________________ Employment Judge Hoey Date: 14 November 2019[1]Following a Preliminary Hearing on 18 September 2019 the Tribunal (Employment Judge Hoey) made an order requiring the claimant to pay a deposit of £750 as a condition of his continuing with his claim. This order was sent to the parties on 19 October 2019.[2]The order was made under rule 39(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The claimant was notified, by email from the Tribunal dated 19 October 2019, that the deposit of £750 was due to be paid by 2 November 2019.[3]The claimant did not pay the deposit by this date.[4]By further Case management Order dated 14 November 2019 (sent to the parties on 15 November 2019) Employment Judge Hoey provided the claimant with a further opportunity to pay the deposit of £750 and set a new date for payment of 25 November 2019.[5]By email dated 27 November 2019 from the respondent’s representative (copied to the claimant) the representative enquired as to whether the deposit had been paid by the second deadline date. The representative noted the enquiry was urgent due to this case being listed for final hearing on 16 and 17 December 2019.[6]The claimant has not paid the deposit of £750. The claimant has not provided any comment on the email from the respondent dated 27 November 2019. Case No: 2404604/2019 6.3 Strike Out Judgment – claim – part - rule 37[7]The claimant has been provided with the standard “Note Accompanying Deposit Order.” This note accompanied the case management orders sent on 19 October 2019 and 15 November 2019. The note includes the following: “What happens if you do not pay the deposit? If the deposit is not paid the allegation(s) or argument(s) to which the order relates will be struck out on the date specified in the order.”[8]Rule 39(4) of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013 provides “If the paying party fails to pay the deposit order by the date specified, the specific allegation or argument to which the deposit order relates shall be struck out.”[9]The date for payment was clearly set out in both Case Management Orders sent. Further, the Case Management Order of 14 November 2019 includes the following: “The claimant is now ordered to pay the deposit of £750 on or before 25 November 2019 as a condition of proceeding with his claim, which failing, his claim will be dismissed without further procedure.”[10]By email dated 19 October 2019, the claimant made comments on and raised objections to the deposit order made. These comments and objections were considered by Employment Judge Hoey when making his case management orders of 15 November 2019.[11]The only claim raised by the claimant in these proceedings is the claim that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability. There are no claims in these proceedings to which the deposit order does not apply.[12]Having regard to the matters set out above and to the Overriding Objective at rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, it is fair and just to now strike out this claim in its entirety.