Case 1400795/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Crawford v Southwestern Ambulance Service Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400795/2019
- Decision date
- 9 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Crawford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs S Crawford, had been ordered to pay a £300 deposit following a preliminary hearing on 15 October 2019. The order was sent to her on 23 October 2019, but the deposit was not paid.
Because the deposit was unpaid, the tribunal struck out three complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013: sex discrimination, breach of contract for notice, and the alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments in breach of sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not determine the merits of those complaints; it records only the strike-out outcome for non-payment of the deposit.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's remaining claims would proceed. The matter was listed for a case management hearing by telephone on 13 December 2019 at noon.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay a £300 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 15 October 2019. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice was struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the £300 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the £300 deposit. | 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.