Case 2204821/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. L FEARS v Resimanagement Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204821/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. L FEARS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £50 for each of the seven allegations, a total of £350, as a condition of continuing to advance them. The deposit order was sent to the parties on 22 December 2021 and required payment within 21 days.
The claimant did not pay any deposit. The tribunal therefore struck out all seven allegations under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The struck-out allegations comprised four detriment claims said to arise from the claimant seeking to exercise the right to be accompanied under s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999, and three automatic unfair dismissal claims under s.104 ERA 1996, including one allegation referring to protections derived under ss.13, 26 and 27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not determine the underlying merits of any of those allegations.
No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Allegation of detriment by refusing to conduct the disciplinary hearing in the way pleaded, said to arise from the claimant seeking to exercise the right to be accompanied under s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999. Struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the ordered deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Allegation of detriment by refusing to apply the contractual disciplinary procedure and/or the Acas Code as pleaded, said to arise from the claimant seeking to exercise the right to be accompanied under s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999. Struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the ordered deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Allegation of detriment by refusing to grant an appeal against dismissal as pleaded, said to arise from the claimant seeking to exercise the right to be accompanied under s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999. Struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the ordered deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Allegation of detriment by dismissing the claimant as pleaded, said to arise from the claimant seeking to exercise the right to be accompanied under s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999. Struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the ordered deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal allegation under s.104 ERA 1996, based on the claimant's assertion of the statutory right to be accompanied at the 4 March 2021 meeting. Struck out under rule 39(4) after non-payment of the ordered deposit. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 39(4) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999
- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.13, 26 and 27 Equality Act 2010
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.