Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust and others

Case Summary

The claimant's claims, other than the payslips claim, are struck out for failure to pay a deposit order. The payslips claim against Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust remains and will proceed to a one day hearing before an employment judge.

The claimant failed to pay a deposit order that had been made, resulting in strike-out of all claims except the payslips claim, which was specifically exempted from the deposit order requirement.

• •Breach of the rights conferred by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to itemised payslips

Case No: 3313647/2022 7.6C Deposit not paid – Judgment - claimant Rule 39 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Heaney Respondent: Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust R1 Mo Abedi R2 Parmjit Rai R3 Modupe Sorinola R4 Yves Hylaire-Tchoudi R5 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 an employment judge only. REASONS 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. 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. supplem…