Case 1800068/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Bwitanda v Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800068/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Bwitanda
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held on 29 June 2022, Employment Judge Miller ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £50 for each allegation of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race in the claim form. The order was sent to the claimant on 29 June 2022, and the deposit was required to be paid by 31 August 2022.
The claimant did not pay the ordered deposit by the deadline. As a result, the tribunal struck out the complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Following a preliminary hearing on 29 June 2022, the claimant was ordered to pay a £50 deposit for this allegation. The deposit was not paid by 31 August 2022, so the complaint was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Following a preliminary hearing on 29 June 2022, the claimant was ordered to pay a £50 deposit for this allegation. The deposit was not paid by 31 August 2022, so the complaint was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
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.