Case 1803008/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Bryce v Department of Work and Pensions — 2021

Case reference: 1803008/2020
Decision date: 16 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Buckley Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Bryce

Respondent

Department of Work and Pensions

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant had been ordered, after a preliminary hearing on 13 May 2021, to pay a deposit of £130 for each of three claims. The order was sent on 14 May 2021 and required payment within 21 days, by 4 June 2021.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant paid £260 on 7 June 2021, after the deadline, but did not identify which claims the payment related to. No explanation for the late payment and no application for an extension of time had been provided.

Applying rule 39 and considering the discretion referred to in Arvunescu, the tribunal found that the balance of prejudice and the interests of justice favoured strike out. The three claims were struck out under rule 39(4), the September 2021 hearing was vacated, and the claimant was entitled to a refund of the late-paid deposit.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment describes this as indirect discrimination based on the respondent's refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing on 5 July 2020, but the protected characteristic is not identified in the judgment text.	Struck out	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment describes this as a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.	Struck out	Disability	—
Other	The judgment describes this as a claim for breach of s 10 ERelA 1999.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

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.