Case 1804617/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Walton v Netheredge Care Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804617/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Walton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms N Walton, brought a complaint of discrimination contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 against Netheredge Care Ltd. After a preliminary hearing on 26 April 2021, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £200. The order was sent to the claimant on the same date.
The claimant did not pay the deposit. As a result, the tribunal struck out the discrimination complaint under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying merits of the discrimination allegation.
Because the claim was struck out for non-payment of the deposit, the hearing listed for 8, 9 and 10 November 2021 did not take place. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal struck out the complaint after the claimant failed to pay a £200 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 26 April 2021. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.