Case 1801363/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss A Pearman v Engaging Education (a company limited by guarantee) — 2020

Case reference: 1801363/2020
Decision date: 3 August 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Lancaster Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss A Pearman

Respondent

Engaging Education (a company limited by guarantee)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By an order dated 17 June 2020, the claimant was required to pay a deposit as a condition of a number of arguments or allegations continuing. The claimant did not pay that deposit in respect of two of those allegations or arguments.

As a result, the tribunal struck out the allegation on the constructive dismissal claim that the claimant could rely on a 'last straw' after 10 December 2019. The victimisation claim was also struck out. No merits findings were made on those allegations in this judgment.

This was a procedural judgment under Rule 39, and it did not determine any compensatory or other monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	Only the allegation that, on the constructive dismissal claim, the claimant could rely on a 'last straw' after 10 December 2019 was struck out because the ordered deposit was not paid.	Struck out	—	—
Victimisation	The victimisation claim was struck out because the claimant did not pay the deposit ordered on 17 June 2020.	Struck out	—	—

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.