Case 2302070/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M D’Rozario v Kingston University Service Company (KUSCO) — 2024

Case reference: 2302070/2023
Decision date: 23 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wright Ordered

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M D’Rozario

Respondent

Kingston University Service Company (KUSCO)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On 23 January 2024, Employment Judge Wright Ordered directed that the claimant's claim of unlawful disability discrimination had little prospects of success and ordered him to pay a £100 deposit within 21 days, making the deadline 13 February 2024. The judgment records that the claimant did not pay by that date.

The tribunal applied Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, which provides that if the paying party fails to pay the deposit by the specified date, the specific allegation or argument to which the deposit order relates shall be struck out. The claimant paid the deposit late on 23 March 2024.

Because the deposit was not paid by the deadline, the tribunal struck out the disability discrimination complaint. No compensation or other monetary award was made in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal struck out the claimant's complaint of disability discrimination after he did not pay the £100 deposit by the deadline of 13 February 2024. The deposit order had been made on 23 January 2024 on the basis that the claim had little prospects of success, and the tribunal recorded that payment was made late on 23 March 2024.	Struck out	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.

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.