Case 2216702/2023 · Employment Tribunal
MS R PENDERED v Media Zoo Holdings Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216702/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MS R PENDERED
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of £500 as a condition of continuing her direct sex discrimination claim, and a further deposit of £500 as a condition of continuing her direct disability discrimination claim. The order followed a preliminary hearing on 10 December 2024 and was sent to the claimant on 20 December 2024.
The claimant did not pay the deposits. The tribunal therefore struck out the direct sex discrimination and direct disability discrimination complaints under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment states that this did not affect the harassment claims related to sex and/or disability or the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the direct sex discrimination claim was struck out after the claimant failed to pay a required deposit of £500. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the direct disability discrimination claim was struck out after the claimant failed to pay a required deposit of £500. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.