In Carryl v Governing Body of Manford Primary School [2023] EAT 167 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that when an employment judge is deciding the amount of a deposit order it should ask a paying party how much money they have coming in and going out so that the judge has a view as to that party’s disposable income available within a particular period. They ought to make specific enquiries as to the payer’s actual weekly or monthly take home pay, taking into account deductions such as tax, National Insurance, pensions and other regular commitments. Once the judge has that information they can set a deposit at a level which has sufficient impact to cause a party to reflect but not to prevent pursuit of a claim or case. In setting the amount they must not take account of the merits or lack of merits of the case.
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>