Case 1805221/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Linton v University of Sheffield & David Oglethorpe — 2020

Case reference: 1805221/2019
Decision date: 25 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Linton

Respondent

University of Sheffield & David Oglethorpe

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Three deposit orders were made on 27 November 2019 and sent to the claimant on 4 December 2019. The claimant was specifically told when each deposit had to be paid and what would happen if he did not pay one or more of them.

The judgment records that the claimant paid a deposit in relation to victimisation only. The claims of associative direct discrimination and discrimination due to belief were not covered by the paid deposit and were therefore struck out.

Employment Judge T R Smith struck out the two claims under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure for non-compliance with the deposit orders. No financial award is recorded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment describes this as a claim of associative direct discrimination. It was struck out under rule 39(4) for non-compliance with a deposit order.	Struck out	—	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The judgment describes this as discrimination due to belief. It was struck out under rule 39(4) for non-compliance with a deposit order.	Struck out	Religion or belief	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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 .

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.