Case 1400972/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Revell v RPM Building Supplies Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1400972/2018
- Decision date
- 10 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Revell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 30 July 2018, Employment Judge Roper ordered the claimant to pay deposits of £1,000 for the unfair dismissal claim and £500 each for the breach of contract and unlawful deductions/national minimum wage claims. The deposit order was sent to the claimant on 15 August 2018.
The judgment records that the claimant failed to pay any of the deposits. Because the deposits were not paid, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim and each of the breach of contract and unlawful deductions/national minimum wage claims under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
No substantive determination of liability or remedy is recorded in this judgment. The decision is limited to strike-out following non-payment of the ordered deposits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | A deposit of £1,000 had been ordered for this claim at the preliminary hearing on 30 July 2018. 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 | — | — |
| Breach of contract | A deposit of £500 had been ordered for this claim at the preliminary hearing on 30 July 2018. 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 | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'unlawful deductions/national minimum wage' claims collectively and records a £500 deposit for this claim. 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 | — | — |
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.