Case 1802976/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A R Reynolds v Regaldon UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802976/2021
- Decision date
- 3 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A R Reynolds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 20 December 2021, Employment Judge Lancaster ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £30. The order was sent to the claimant on 21 December 2021, but the claimant did not pay it.
Because the deposit was not paid, the tribunal struck out the claimant’s claims that he had been subject to unlawful discrimination or harassment because of perceived disability, under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal stated that these were the totality of the claimant’s claims, so the proceedings came to an end and the hearing listed for 11 March 2022 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to claims of unlawful discrimination because of perceived disability; they were struck out after the claimant did not pay the £30 deposit ordered at the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment also refers to a harassment claim because of perceived disability; it was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for non-payment of the £30 deposit. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.