Case 2204580/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Thompson v Department for Work and Pensions — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204580/2021
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of £150 following a preliminary hearing on 29 April 2022. The order was sent to the claimant on 9 May 2022.
The claimant did not pay the deposit within 21 days of the order being sent. The tribunal therefore struck out the remaining claims under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the listed December 2022 hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims were struck out after non-payment of a deposit order. The discrimination category is taken from the listing context rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims were struck out after non-payment of a deposit order. The discrimination category is taken from the listing context rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims were struck out after non-payment of a deposit order. The discrimination category is taken from the listing context rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.