Case 1402713/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Robertson v Seed of Hope CIC — 2024
- Case reference
- 1402713/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that a deposit order for £500 had been made following a preliminary hearing on 13/11/2023 and sent to the Respondent on 22/11/2023. As the Respondent failed to pay the deposit, the part of the response disputing that Ms S Robertson was a disabled person at the material time was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
This was a procedural ruling and not a liability judgment on the substance of the disability discrimination claim. The public preliminary hearing listed for 03/04/2024 was vacated. The further Case Management Preliminary Hearing remained listed for 14 June 2024 and the final hearing remained listed for 8-12 July 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal did not determine the merits of the discrimination claim. It struck out the part of the response disputing that the Claimant was a disabled person at the material time because the Respondent had been ordered to pay a £500 deposit after a preliminary hearing on 13/11/2023 and failed to pay it. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.