Case 1805849/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Nurse v Venice Regal Sheffield Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805849/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Nurse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an order dated 6 February 2023, the Tribunal directed the claimant to pay a deposit in respect of each of the claims identified in that order as a condition of being allowed to continue to advance them. The judgment records that the claimant failed to pay a deposit in respect of any of the claims.
As a result, the Tribunal struck the claim out in its entirety. The judgment does not contain any merits findings on the underlying complaints and does not separately determine the individual causes of action. The hearing listed for 16 March 2023 was therefore vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not list the individual claims, but the case context identifies this as one of the claims in issue. The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety because no deposit was paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not list the individual claims, but the case context identifies this as one of the claims in issue. The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety because no deposit was paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not list the individual claims, but the case context identifies this as one of the claims in issue. The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety because no deposit was paid. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the individual claims, but the case context identifies this as one of the claims in issue. The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety because no deposit was paid. | Struck out | — | — |
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.