Case 1802371/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Abraham v PCT Healthcare Ltd trading as Peak Pharmacy — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802371/2021
- Decision date
- 15 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Abraham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 10 June 2021, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £20 in respect of each of four claims: unfair dismissal for the inadmissible reason of pregnancy, pregnancy discrimination, age discrimination, and race discrimination. The order was sent to the claimant on 16 June 2021.
The claimant did not pay any of the deposits. On that basis, the tribunal struck out all four complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 29 November to 1 December 2021 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim described as unfair dismissal for the inadmissible reason of pregnancy. Struck out because the claimant failed to pay the £20 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal ordered a £20 deposit for this claim after a preliminary hearing on 10 June 2021. No deposit was paid, so the complaint was struck out under rule 39(4). | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal ordered a £20 deposit for this claim after a preliminary hearing on 10 June 2021. No deposit was paid, so the complaint was struck out under rule 39(4). | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal ordered a £20 deposit for this claim after a preliminary hearing on 10 June 2021. No deposit was paid, so the complaint was struck out under rule 39(4). | Struck out | Race | — |
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.