Case 1807398/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Singh v Link Asset Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 1807398/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a preliminary hearing on 18 October 2021, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £100 for each allegation, £200 in total. The order was sent to the claimant on 24 November 2021.
The claimant did not pay the deposit. As a result, the complaints of direct discrimination because of race and direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the final hearing listed for 16 to 18 May 2022 would not take place. No substantive findings on the merits of either discrimination complaint or any remedy award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £100 per allegation (£200 in total) following a preliminary hearing on 18 October 2021, but failed to pay. The direct race discrimination complaint was therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £100 per allegation (£200 in total) following a preliminary hearing on 18 October 2021, but failed to pay. The direct discrimination complaint on grounds of religion or belief was therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) 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.
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.