Case 1400053/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Flanders v 1) Lady Deirdre Dyson 2) Sir James Dyson — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400053/2019
- Decision date
- 3 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Flanders
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs L Flanders, brought equal pay complaints against Lady Deirdre Dyson and Sir James Dyson. At a preliminary hearing on 19 November 2019, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £350 for each of her equal pay claims, identified in the judgment as like work and equal value claims.
The order was sent to the claimant on 2 December 2019. The judgment records that the claimant failed to pay the required deposit.
As a result, both equal pay complaints were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No substantive determination on the merits and no monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Equal pay complaint for like work; struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £350 deposit ordered for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Equal pay | Equal pay complaint for equal value; struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £350 deposit ordered for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.