Case 2203664/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Nzewi v Cordant Security Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203664/2020
- Decision date
- 24 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z Nzewi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity, and arrears of pay against Cordant Security Limited.
Following a preliminary hearing on 9 December 2020, the claimant was ordered to pay deposits of £100 for each of the three claims, totalling £300. The claimant did not pay the deposits, and the tribunal struck out the claims under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The hearing listed for 15 June 2021 had been postponed and was not to be rearranged because the strike-out judgment brought the proceedings to an end.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out after the claimant failed to pay a £100 deposit ordered for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claim was struck out after the claimant failed to pay a £100 deposit ordered for this claim. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as a claim for arrears of pay. It was struck out after the claimant failed to pay a £100 deposit ordered for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
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.