Case 1601603/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Edwards v NIC Services Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601603/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of £50 following a preliminary hearing held on 21 January 2021. The order was sent to the claimant on 17 February 2021.
The claimant failed to pay the deposit. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the hearing listed for 2-5 August 2021 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for non-payment of a £50 deposit. It does not separately discuss this pleaded head; classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for non-payment of a £50 deposit. It does not separately discuss this pleaded head; classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for non-payment of a £50 deposit. It does not separately discuss this pleaded head; classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.