Case 1304478/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Palmer v Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304478/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 27 March 2024, Employment Judge Faulkner, sitting alone, considered the claimant Miss M Palmer's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint against the second respondent because it was not the claimant's employer at the relevant times.
The Tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint against the first respondent because the deductions in question fell within section 14(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which exempted them from section 13. In addition, the Tribunal said that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claim was therefore struck out in its entirety. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Public preliminary hearing judgment. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction against the second respondent because it was not the claimant's employer at the relevant times, and no jurisdiction against the first respondent because the deductions fell within section 14(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and were therefore exempt from section 13. It also held the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 14(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.