Claimant v CQC Care Quality Commission
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under rule 40(4) because the claimant failed to pay the deposit of £1000 (£500 for each of two protected disclosure detriment allegations) ordered at a preliminary hearing on 29 January 2025 following the deadline of 12 February 2025.
Facts
Ms Dancer brought protected disclosure detriment claims against the Care Quality Commission. At a preliminary hearing on 29 January 2025, a deposit order of £1000 (£500 per allegation) was made against her claims. The tribunal considered her financial circumstances, including that she had gross income of £42,000 in the previous tax year, was currently receiving Employment Support Allowance of £90 per week, owned her own home, and had approximately £5000 in savings. The deposit order was sent to her on 12 February 2025 but she failed to pay it.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claimant's protected disclosure detriment claims under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because she failed to pay the deposit order. The hearing scheduled for 24-30 June 2025 was cancelled. The claimant had filed an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 24 February 2025.
Practical note
A claimant's failure to pay a deposit order results in automatic strike out of the claims under rule 40(4), regardless of an appeal being lodged.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1801198/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Salary band
- £40,000–£50,000
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No