Case 1802272/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Gallagher v West End Night Owls Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1802272/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Gallagher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, following a preliminary hearing on 22 August 2024, the claimant was ordered to pay a £100 deposit by 19 September 2024. The claimant did not pay the deposit.
Because the deposit was not paid, the tribunal struck out the allegation that the dismissal amounted to a contravention of the Equality Act on grounds of belief discrimination, applying rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The extracted text also states that the order was sent on 23 August 2023, which appears inconsistent with the 2024 hearing date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant failed to pay a £100 deposit ordered after a preliminary hearing on 22 August 2024. The extracted text says the order was sent on 23 August 2023, which appears inconsistent with the 2024 hearing date. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.