Mrs B Williams v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council: 6008849/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The following allegations are struck out: Allegation 1a. Ms Taylor contacted the claimant on her personal email when she was absent on sick leave on 26, 29 and 30 April 2024 (on two occasions) – paragraphs2.1.1 and 3.1.3 of the list of issues in the order dated 3 July 2025. Allegation 2b. Mr Barratt did not address the concerns set out in the claimant’s resignation letter dated 7 May 2024 in a timely manner – paragraph2.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the list of issues in the order dated 3 July 2025. Allegation 3c. Ms Taylor refused to allow the claimant to communicate verbally with her after the claimant submitted her resignation letter on 7 May 2024 – paragraphs 2.1.4 and 3.1.5 of the list of issues in the order dated 3 July 2025REASONS
[1]At a hearing on 3 July 2025, and on the application of the respondent, the tribunal made a deposit order in respect of the three allegations set out above after hearing submissions on behalf of both parties.[2]The deposit order set out that the claimant was required to pay a deposit of £525.00 per allegation if she wished to pursue them within 28 days of the order being made, otherwise the allegations would be struck out pursuant to the provisions of rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the rules”).[3]The order was subsequently sent to the parties on 17 August 2025.[4]On 31 July 2025 the claimant sent an email to the tribunal (which did not copy in the respondent as required by rule 90 of the rules. In that email she confirmed that due to personal matters she had been unable to consider the deposit order and that she had decided not to pay the deposit in order to focus on other matters.[5]The 28 day time limit has expired and the deposit has not been paid.[6]Therefore pursuant to the provisions of rule 40 of the rules the allegations which were the subject of the deposit order stand struck out.[7]The balance of the claims are unaffected by this judgment.