Case 1805429/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs E Dean v R1: Hebden Bridge Group Practice R2: Tony Martin — 2020

Case reference: 1805429/2019
Decision date: 20 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Smith Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs E Dean

Respondent

R1: Hebden Bridge Group Practice R2: Tony Martin

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £20.00 following a preliminary hearing held on 6 December 2019. The order was sent to the claimant on 17 December 2019, but the claimant did not pay the deposit.

As a result, the tribunal struck out the complaint under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The struck-out complaints were unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, maternity dismissal, disability dismissal, and breach of contract. The judgment records that the final hearing listed for 20 to 23 April 2020 would not take place.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £20 deposit ordered following a preliminary hearing on 6 December 2019.	Struck out	—	—
Sex discrimination	Struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the £20 deposit ordered following a preliminary hearing on 6 December 2019.	Struck out	Sex	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The judgment describes this as 'Maternity Dismissal'; it was struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £20 deposit.	Struck out	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Disability discrimination	Struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £20 deposit ordered by the tribunal.	Struck out	Disability	—
Breach of contract	Struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £20 deposit ordered by the tribunal.	Struck out	—	—

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 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.