Mr J Heaney v Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust and others: 3313647/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]By orders dated 9 October 2023 and sent to parties on 24 November 2023, EJ Maxwell supplied the parties with a list of issues. At paragraph 7.1 of that list, EJ Maxwell identified a complaint that there has been a breach of the rights conferred by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to itemised payslips. I will call that the Payslips Claim. The Payslips Claim is not struck out.[2]The Payslips Claim is against Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust (“R1”) only.[3]Each and every other claim, against any respondent, is struck out.[4]The hearing due to start on 31 March 2025 is not cancelled. However, it is now a one day hearing and is to be before a panel consisting of anREASONS
[1]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £200 following a preliminary hearing held on 9 October 2023.[2]The Order was sent to the claimant on 24 November 2023.[3]The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. 7.6C Deposit not paid – Judgment - claimant Rule 39[4]All of the complaints which depend on the allegations stated in the deposit order are therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[5]All of the complaints, apart from the Payslips Claim depended on the allegations stated in the deposit order. Thus all those claims are struck out, and only the Payslips Claim remains.[6]The Payslips Claim (which is a reference to the Tribunal in accordance with section 11 ERA. supplemented by sections 12 and 8) is a claim which can only be brought against the “employer”.[7]If the parties are unable to resolve the matter by agreement, they must prepare for a one day hearing before a judge (only) on 31 March 2025. The existing case management orders continue to apply save that in paragraph 13, two copies of the bundle are required, and in paragraph 18, three copies of the witness statements are required. .