Case 1400088/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Pritchard v Bournemouth Building & Maintenance Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400088/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Pritchard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination by Mr D Pritchard against Bournemouth Building & Maintenance Limited. After a preliminary hearing on 18 December 2020, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £300 in respect of each allegation, making £600 in total. The order was sent on 6 January 2021.
The claimant did not pay the deposit. As a result, the tribunal struck out both the unfair dismissal and sex discrimination complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of either claim and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | A deposit order of £300 was made in respect of this allegation after the preliminary hearing on 18 December 2020. The claimant did not pay the deposit, so the claim was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | A deposit order of £300 was made in respect of this allegation after the preliminary hearing on 18 December 2020. The claimant did not pay the deposit, so the complaint was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.