Case 2302752/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Anike v The London Borough of Richmond on Thames and the London Borough of Wandsworth — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302752/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Anike
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, following a preliminary hearing on 15 April 2024, the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £300. The order was sent to the claimant on 1 May 2024, but the deposit was not paid.
Because the deposit was not paid, the complaints of race discrimination, sex discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on the merits of those complaints.
The hearing listed for 12, 13 and 14 February 2025 was therefore vacated and would not take place. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint was struck out after the claimant failed to pay the £300 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 15 April 2024. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint was struck out after the claimant failed to pay the £300 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 15 April 2024. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint was struck out after the claimant failed to pay the £300 deposit ordered following the preliminary hearing on 15 April 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
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.