Claimant's Discrimination Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
An Employment Tribunal dismissed the worker's claims of discrimination against their employer due to non-payment of a required deposit, emphasising the importance of adhering to procedural rules in employment disputes.
⚖️ Legal holding
An Employment Tribunal may strike out claims under rule 40(4) if the claimant fails to pay a required deposit.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's discrimination claims were struck out for non-payment of a required deposit.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant's complaints of direct and indirect discrimination were struck out under rule 40(4) for failure to pay a required deposit following a preliminary hearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 1400225/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] 2. [NAME]
The claims in the list of issues at paragraphs 4.2.2 (a complaint of direct discrimination) and 5 (indirect discrimination) are struck out under rule 40 (4).
REASONS
The Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £10 per allegation (paragraphs 4.2.2 and 5 of the List of Issues) following a preliminary hearing held on 30 January 2026. The Order was sent to the Claimant on 09 March 2026. She has failed to pay this deposit. The complaints in the list of issues at paragraphs 4.2.2 (a complaint of direct discrimination) and 5 (indirect discrimination) are struck out under rule 40 (4).
Approved by
Employment Judge Livesey
Date: 7 April 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
21 April 2026 By Mr [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualify…
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Non-Compliance and Unreasonable Conduct
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims Due to Lack of Serv…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Complaint Due to Short Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Redundancy Payment Claim for Missing Step
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claimant’s Employment Claims
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out for Insufficient Service
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant does not have at least two years of continuous employment.
- The claimant failed to comply with orders or engaged in unreasonable conduct.
- The claim lacks reasonable prospects of success.
- The claimant did not notify Acas for early conciliation before presenting the claim.
- The benefits claimed are not substantiated by evidence or applicable law.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant's complaints of direct and indirect discrimination were struck out for failure to pay a required deposit.
Who was involved?
A worker (the claimant) against their employer (British American Tobacco Investments Ltd).
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claims should be struck out because the claimant failed to pay a required deposit as ordered by the tribunal.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Rule 40(4) of Employment Tribunal procedures was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The failure to comply with the procedural requirement to pay a deposit mattered most in this decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing similar issues should ensure they comply with all procedural requirements set by the tribunal to avoid having their claims struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as being crucial; adherence to procedural rules was key.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions on striking out can often be appealed, but the specifics depend on the circumstances and applicable laws.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for guidance on procedural requirements in employment disputes.