Case 1805881/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Hoey v Riverside Surgery — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805881/2021
- Decision date
- 19 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Hoey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with case management and strike-out. By reserved judgment sent on 19 October 2022, Employment Judge McAvoy Newns ordered the Claimant to pay a £500 deposit as a condition of pursuing her claim for automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and gave 14 days for payment.
The Claimant applied for reconsideration on 25 October 2022, but that application was refused by reserved judgment sent on 18 November 2022. The deposit was not paid.
Applying rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, which provides that if the paying party fails to pay the deposit by the specified date the specific allegation or argument to which the order relates shall be struck out, the tribunal struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was for automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. A £500 deposit was ordered on 19 October 2022 as a condition of pursuing the claim, reconsideration was refused on 18 November 2022, and the deposit was not paid, so the claim was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 39(4) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.