Case 2300995/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr N Garrard v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300995/2023
- Decision date
- 18 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr N Garrard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of GBP 500 following a preliminary hearing on 1 March 2024. The order was sent to the claimant on 13 May 2024, and the claimant failed to pay the deposit.
Under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or sexual orientation was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining complaints proceed to a hearing beginning on 30 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment struck out the complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or sexual orientation because the claimant failed to pay a GBP 500 deposit ordered after a preliminary hearing. The judgment states that remaining complaints proceed. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment struck out the complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or sexual orientation because the claimant failed to pay a GBP 500 deposit ordered after a preliminary hearing. The judgment states that remaining complaints proceed. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.