Case 1805049/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Gellen v Directline plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805049/2019
- Decision date
- 1 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Gellen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's Equality Act victimisation complaint under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. A deposit of £50 had been ordered following a preliminary hearing on 13 March 2020, and the order was sent to the claimant on 18 March 2020.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant engaged in some correspondence about paying the deposit or securing more time, but this was not done in a timely way and no extension was granted. Because the deposit was not paid and no variation of the order was obtained, the victimisation complaint was struck out.
The judgment stated that the remaining claims would proceed subject to further case management, but it did not determine those claims in this decision or record any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The Equality Act victimisation complaint was struck out after the claimant failed to pay the £50 deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing on 13 March 2020 or obtain a variation or extension of time. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.