Case 2302752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Milleo v Sanrizz Mayfair Limited STRIKE OUT — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302752/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Milleo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a strike out judgment under Rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. It recorded that the claimant had failed to pay the deposit order issued by Employment Judge Dyal and sent to the parties on 17 October 2024.
Because the deposit order was not paid, the tribunal said it had no choice but to strike out Complaint 1 and Complaint 2, as defined by Employment Judge Dyal’s case management order dated 11 October 2024. The judgment does not set out the underlying substance of those complaints.
Complaint 3 was stated to be unaffected by the judgment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Identified in the judgment only as Complaint 1. It was struck out under Rule 40 because the claimant failed to pay the deposit order issued by Employment Judge Dyal and sent on 17 October 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Identified in the judgment only as Complaint 2. It was struck out under Rule 40 because the claimant failed to pay the deposit order issued by Employment Judge Dyal and sent on 17 October 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.