Claimant v Reed in Partnership Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out under rule 40(4) for failure to pay the ordered deposit of £800 by the extended deadline of 3 January 2025, despite being granted a significant and exceptional extension of time.
Struck out under rule 40(4) for failure to pay the ordered deposit by the extended deadline of 3 January 2025.
Struck out under rule 40(4) for failure to pay the ordered deposit by the extended deadline of 3 January 2025.
Public interest disclosure detriment claim struck out under rule 40(4) for failure to pay the ordered deposit by the extended deadline of 3 January 2025.
Facts
The claimant brought claims for disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and public interest disclosure detriment. On 20 November 2024, deposit orders totalling £800 were imposed with a deadline of 13 December 2024. Following an application citing illness and pending solicitor assessment, Employment Judge Keogh granted an extension to 3 January 2025 and required medical evidence. Despite multiple extension requests, the claimant failed to pay the deposits or provide formal medical evidence by the deadline.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to pay the ordered deposits by the extended deadline. The judge refused a further extension, noting the claimant had already been granted a significant and exceptional extension, the respondent's entitlement to finality, and the prejudice to preparation for the February 2025 hearing.
Practical note
Deposit orders must be complied with by the specified deadline; even where a party is unrepresented and citing illness or pending legal advice, extensions will not be granted indefinitely and failure to pay results in mandatory strike out under rule 40(4).
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2218436/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No