Cases8000106/2025

Claimant v Fala Foods Ltd

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claimant accepted she did not have two years qualifying service necessary to make a claim of ordinary unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act. Claim was subsequently dismissed.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

A deposit order of £50 was made as a precondition of continuing with the claim that dismissal was an act of disability discrimination. The claimant did not pay the deposit by the due date of 2 April 2025, and this specific allegation was struck out.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Claimant has other discrimination claims not affected by the deposit order which remain live and will proceed to hearing. A hearing on disability status is fixed for 24 June 2025.

Facts

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She did not have the two years qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal and accepted this, leading to dismissal of that claim. A deposit order of £50 was made on 11 March 2025 as a precondition of continuing with the claim that her dismissal was disability discrimination. She did not pay by the 2 April deadline. The tribunal struck out that specific allegation but incorrectly stated this ended all proceedings. The claimant sought reconsideration to clarify that her other discrimination claims remain live.

Decision

The tribunal granted reconsideration and deleted the final sentence stating proceedings had ended. The unfair dismissal claim remains dismissed for lack of qualifying service. The specific claim that dismissal was disability discrimination remains struck out for non-payment of the deposit. Other disability discrimination claims remain live and will proceed, with a hearing on disability status scheduled for 24 June 2025.

Practical note

A deposit order applies only to the specific allegation or argument identified in the order, not to all claims in the proceedings, and tribunals must be precise about what is struck out following non-payment.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996

Case details

Case number
8000106/2025
Decision date
2 May 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
food manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No