Mr L Chapman v Leicestershire Partnerships NHS Trust — 2022

Mr L Chapman brought a claim framed as unlawful deduction from wages in relation to holiday pay during a phased return to work after sickness absence. He accepted that his payslips showed he had been paid his full salaried entitlement, but argued that the respondent should have paid sick pay and left his annual leave untouched. The tribunal applied section 13 and section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with Rogers v Dorothy Barley School, and held that there had been no deduction from wages because the claimant had suffered no shortfall in pay and holiday entitlement was not wages. The tribunal therefore found that the unlawful deduction from wages claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The tribunal treated the claimant's alternative case as a breach of contract claim about the application of holiday and sick pay. It held that such a claim could not be heard by the Employment Tribunal while the employment relationship continued, relying on Order 3 of the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction over that claim and struck it out as well. It recorded that no claim advanced in the proceedings had a reasonable prospect of success, so the case was struck out in its entirety. In addressing the strike-out applications, the tribunal also referred to the overriding objective in Rule 2 and to Cox v Adecco when considering the approach to an unrepresented claimant's pleaded case.