Case 1801105/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr KW Roberts v Akari Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801105/2019
- Decision date
- 2 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr KW Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr KW Roberts, had been ordered to pay a deposit of £1,000 after a preliminary hearing on 13 May 2019, and that the order was sent to him on 14 May 2019. The claimant did not pay the deposit. The complaint identified in the judgment as automatic unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures at paragraph 28 of the ET1 was therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment header uses the word 'dismissed', but the reasons section states the operative basis was strike out for non-payment of the deposit. The judgment also states that all other complaints would continue to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment's heading says the complaint is dismissed, but the reasons state it was struck out under rule 39(4) because the claimant did not pay the £1,000 deposit ordered at the preliminary hearing. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.