Case 2302222/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Cook v Sparring Partners Limited (Trading as Gymbox and/or MOB45) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302222/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Curtis
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Cook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 7 November 2023, EJ Curtis made a deposit order in relation to the claimant’s allegations that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex. The order was sent on 28 November 2023, and after representations the claimant was granted an extension until 22 March 2024 to pay the deposit.
The tribunal recorded that a cheque from the claimant was received on 26 March 2024, after the extended deadline, and that the cheque was not cleared for payment. On that basis, the deposit remained outstanding.
As a result, by operation of EJ Curtis’ orders, the claimant’s sex discrimination claims were struck out. The tribunal stated that there were no remaining claims against the second respondent. The claims against the first respondent for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages remained live.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | At a preliminary hearing on 7 November 2023, EJ Curtis made a deposit order in relation to the claimant’s allegations of sex discrimination. The deadline was extended to 22 March 2024, but the cheque received on 26 March 2024 was after the deadline and was not cleared, so the deposit remained outstanding and the sex discrimination claims were struck out by operation of the order. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.