Case 2203814/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Porter v Ubs Ag — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203814/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Porter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of direct age discrimination and indirect age discrimination. It recorded that, following a preliminary hearing on 4 July 2023, the claimant had been ordered to pay a total deposit of £600, split as £300 for the direct age discrimination complaint and £300 for the indirect age discrimination complaint. The order was sent to the claimant on 5 July 2023, but the deposit was not paid.
Because the deposit was not paid, the tribunal struck out both age discrimination complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any compensatory award or other monetary remedy for those complaints.
The judgment also states that the remaining claims were to proceed to a hearing commencing on 11 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not pay the £300 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing on 4 July 2023. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination complaint struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not pay the £300 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing on 4 July 2023. | Struck out | Age | — |
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.