Case 1801014/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms R Chunara v The City Medical Practice, Whetley Medical Centre — 2019

Case reference: 1801014/2019
Decision date: 19 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Lancaster Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms R Chunara

Respondent

The City Medical Practice, Whetley Medical Centre

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the respondent had been ordered to pay a £1,000 deposit following a preliminary hearing on 13 August 2019, and that the order was sent to the respondent on 14 August 2019. Because the respondent failed to pay the deposit, the part of the response relating to the unfair dismissal claim was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

Following that strike-out, the tribunal made a determination on the unfair dismissal claim under rule 21(2) and stated in the judgment that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The judgment is a liability decision only and records that the consolidated hearing would still take place as a remedy hearing in respect of the unfair dismissal claim.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The respondent failed to pay the £1,000 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing, so the part of the response relating to unfair dismissal was struck out under rule 39(4) and the tribunal made a determination on that part of the claim under rule 21(2).	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.