Claimant v Fujitsu Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out for failure to pay the deposit ordered by EJ Shastri-Hurst by the specified deadline of 10 February 2025. Under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal must strike out claims where the deposit is not paid by the specified date.
Struck out for failure to pay the deposit ordered by EJ Shastri-Hurst by the specified deadline of 10 February 2025. The claimant's application for extension of time came too late, after the deadline had passed.
Facts
The claimant brought claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment related to sex against Fujitsu Services Ltd and two individual respondents. On 13 January 2025, Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst made a deposit order requiring payment by 10 February 2025. The claimant failed to pay by the deadline, instead writing on 11 February 2025 asking for an extension and stating he had sent a cheque for only one allegation.
Decision
Employment Judge Anstis struck out all of the claimant's sex discrimination and harassment claims because the claimant failed to pay the deposit order by the specified deadline. Under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal must strike out claims where the deposit is not paid in time, and no in-time application for extension had been made.
Practical note
Deposit order deadlines are strictly enforced under rule 40(4) of the 2024 Procedure Rules, and claims will be automatically struck out if the deposit is not paid by the specified date, even if a late application for extension is made.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3308966/2023
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No