Case 1400441/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L J Atkin v N-Gaged Training — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400441/2021
- Decision date
- 6 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L J Atkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter a preliminary hearing on 29 March 2022, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £300 in respect of two complaints: disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability. The order was sent to the claimant on 6 April 2022.
The claimant did not pay the deposit for either complaint. The tribunal therefore struck out both complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining complaints were to proceed to the hearing listed for 11 to 13 April 2023. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the complaint of disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments because the claimant did not pay the £300 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing on 29 March 2022, sent on 6 April 2022, under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal struck out the complaint of harassment related to disability because the claimant did not pay the £300 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing on 29 March 2022, sent on 6 April 2022, under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.