Case 1805293/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Dunham v Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805293/2019
- Decision date
- 26 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Dunham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Andrew Dunham, brought a complaint of unlawful deductions from wages against Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. After a preliminary hearing held on 10 February 2020, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £1.00, and the order was sent to him on 18 February 2020.
The claimant did not pay the deposit. As a result, the tribunal struck out the unlawful deductions from wages complaint under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Because the claim was struck out for non-payment of the deposit, the hearing fixed for 1 May 2020 did not take place and no substantive findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered a £1.00 deposit after a preliminary hearing on 10 February 2020. The claimant failed to pay it, so the unlawful deductions from wages complaint was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.