Case 2301428/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A West v David Lloyd Leisure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301428/2022
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a Rule 39 judgment striking out two of the claimant's complaints for non-payment of a deposit. Following a preliminary hearing on 25 May 2023, the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £200.00 in order to continue with the complaints of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and victimisation. The order was sent to the claimant on 8 June 2023.
The claimant did not pay the deposit. Employment Judge Rice-Birchall therefore struck out the complaints of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and victimisation under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining complaint of unfair dismissal was unaffected by this order and that the hearing fixed for 29 November 2023 would proceed in respect of that claim only.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 following the claimant's failure to pay a £200 deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing on 25 May 2023. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 following the claimant's failure to pay a £200 deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing on 25 May 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Not adjudicated in this judgment. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim will proceed to a hearing fixed for 29 November 2023. | Other | — | — |
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.
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.