Daniel Wellsted v South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

The tribunal heard the respondent’s application to strike out the claim under Rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge found that, despite the claimant’s references to unfair dismissal and psychological injury, the pleaded case had been clarified and treated as a claim only for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been reinstated after dismissal and had been paid for the period between dismissal and reinstatement. His claim for two months’ pay was therefore not a wages deduction claim but a claim for compensation for the dismissal, which the tribunal said could not be awarded on these facts. The tribunal also held that there was no Equality Act claim before it, so there was no personal injury claim within the tribunal’s jurisdiction on the pleaded case.

As to the claim for £6,156.55, the tribunal found that the claimant accepted the respondent had paid him sick pay in accordance with his contract, including full pay, half pay and statutory sick pay as applicable. Because he accepted he had received everything contractually due during sickness absence, the tribunal concluded there had been no deduction from wages. It therefore struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.