Case 2218436/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Elliott v Reed in Partnership — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218436/2024
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Elliott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an order dated 20 November 2024 and sent to the parties on 26 November 2024, the claimant was ordered to pay deposits totalling £800 in order to proceed with complaints of disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and public interest disclosure detriment by 13 December 2024. After the claimant applied on 5 December 2024 saying that he had a solicitor in place to assess the claims and had been seriously ill, Employment Judge Keogh extended the deadline to 3 January 2025 and required medical evidence of his current condition if he wished to pay the deposits.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Subject to deposit orders totalling £800; the deposits were not paid by the extended deadline. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Included in the complaints covered by the unpaid deposit orders; struck out under rule 40(4). | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Included in the complaints covered by the unpaid deposit orders; struck out under rule 40(4). | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded in the judgment as a claim of public interest disclosure detriment; struck out for non-payment of the deposit orders. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 40(4) 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.