Case 1801212/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Farrow v Slingsby Advanced Composites Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801212/2021
- Decision date
- 10 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Farrow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 September 2021, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £15 for each of the claims of unfair dismissal and age discrimination. The order was sent to the claimant on 13 September 2021.
The claimant did not pay the deposits by the due date. As a result, both complaints were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the striking out brought the proceedings to an end, and the hearing fixed for 11 November 2021 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was ordered to pay a £15 deposit for this claim following a preliminary hearing on 9 September 2021, but did not pay by the due date. The tribunal struck the claim out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant was ordered to pay a £15 deposit for this claim following a preliminary hearing on 9 September 2021, but did not pay by the due date. The tribunal struck the claim out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Age | — |
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.