In the case of Dr Malgorzata Stadnik-Borowiec v Southern Health and Social Care Trust and Others deposit orders imposed by two Industrial Tribunal chairpersons were quashed. The first order for a £500 deposit was made without the chair giving specific details about the Claimant’s financial circumstances or any explanation of the manner in which these had been taken into account. The second deposit order was made after the Claimant issued further proceedings in relation to the same allegations, but this time naming 15 additional respondents.
The second chair ordered a £200 deposit be paid in respect of each respondent (i.e. £3.000 in total). This latter figure exceeds the limit for a deposit order. The previous deposit order was not drawn to the chair’s attention, which the NICA described as “an important factor”.
Quashing the orders, substituting the first for a deposit of £200 and remitting the case to a different Industrial Tribunal chair for case management, the Court suggested that the tribunal might wish to give consideration to a strike out application hearing and set out the relevant case law on the application of the burden of proof regulations in deposit and strike out hearings.
Full details available here