Case 3313647/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Heaney v Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust R1 Mo Abedi R2 Parmjit Rai R3 Modupe Sorinola R4 Yves Hylaire-Tchoudi R5 — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313647/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that a list of issues had identified a complaint about breach of rights under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to itemised payslips. That Payslips Claim was not struck out and remains against Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust only.
The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of GBP 200 following a preliminary hearing on 9 October 2023, and the order was sent on 24 November 2023. The claimant did not pay the deposit, so all complaints depending on the allegations in the deposit order were struck out under rule 39(4). The future hearing was kept listed for one day before an employment judge only.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Payslips Claim under sections 8, 11 and 12 ERA was not struck out and remains to be heard against R1 only. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that each and every other claim, against any respondent, was struck out after the claimant failed to pay the deposit. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text; this type comes from the listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that each and every other claim, against any respondent, was struck out after the claimant failed to pay the deposit. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text; this type comes from the listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that each and every other claim, against any respondent, was struck out after the claimant failed to pay the deposit. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text; this type comes from the listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 11 ERA
- section 12 ERA
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.