Case 1805271/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Garcia v The Leadership Factor Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805271/2019
- Decision date
- 4 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Garcia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L Garcia, brought complaints of direct and indirect disability discrimination against The Leadership Factor Limited. Following a preliminary hearing on 1 May 2020, the Tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £500. The order was sent on 12 May 2020 and was not varied or revoked.
The claimant did not pay the deposit. The Tribunal therefore struck out the direct and indirect disability discrimination complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment states that the Tribunal had no discretion to do otherwise.
Because the claims were struck out for non-payment of the deposit, the hearing listed for 4 September 2020 did not take place. No substantive findings on liability or compensation were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £500 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 1 May 2020. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of indirect disability discrimination struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £500 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 1 May 2020. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.