Case 2204789/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Gorringe v Ministry of Defence Heard by CVP on 31/5/2023 — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204789/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Gorringe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Gorringe brought fresh unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against the Ministry of Defence in 2022, but the tribunal found they were mostly the same as claims he had already brought in 2015 and then withdrawn. The judge recorded that the recurring themes were alleged lack of computer training, shortcomings in the appeal against dismissal, and problems recovering personal items from a work locker.
A deposit order required payment of £500 by 28 January 2023. The claimant sent the cheque to the wrong address and did not pay the deposit at the correct address until 21 February 2023, after the deadline had passed. The tribunal held that the lateness was not caused by any tribunal error or by ignorance of the order, and that no medical evidence had been produced to support any incapacity affecting payment. The claims were therefore struck out under Rule 39(4).
The judge went on to say that, even if that had not happened, the claims would have been barred by estoppel/res judicata because of the earlier 2015 judgment dismissing the withdrawn claims, and any genuinely new matters would have been an abuse of process under Henderson. He also found the claims were presented more than seven years outside the normal three-month time limit, that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination complaint, and that the claims would in any event have been struck out under Rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (e).
On costs, the respondent sought its costs and the tribunal ordered Mr Gorringe to pay £4,223. That figure was made up of the £500 deposit already paid over to the respondent and a further £3,723 payable to the respondent's solicitors by 14 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Current unfair dismissal claim was brought on the same or substantially the same facts as the claimant's 2015 proceedings, which had been withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal. It was struck out under the deposit order after the claimant paid the £500 deposit late. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Current disability discrimination claim was also based on the same or substantially the same facts as the 2015 proceedings. The tribunal noted the claimant said he suffered from learning difficulty, autism, depression and anxiety, but no medical evidence was produced to substantiate disability or incapacity as the cause of the late deposit payment. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,223
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 39(4)
- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(e)
- res judicata
- issue estoppel
- Henderson
- just and equitable
- reasonably practicable
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.