Mr A Gallagher v Depop Limited — 2023

Case reference: 2210914/2023
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Stout

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Gallagher

Respondent

Depop Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out the whole of Mr A Gallagher's claim under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that he had been warned by letter dated 10 August 2023 that he needed to explain in writing by 24 August 2023 why his unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out because he had less than the two years' service required by s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. He did not respond.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal treated the claim form as containing only an unfair dismissal claim. It struck the claim out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the claimant had less than two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.108 ERA 1996 and did not provide the written reasons requested by the 10 August 2023 letter. The tribunal also noted that holiday pay, notice pay and other arrears of pay were ticked on the form, but no particulars were given and those boxes appeared to relate to compensation sought if the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.