Case 2406226/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Pollitt v Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 2406226/2023
Decision date: 16 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rhodes Date

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr G Pollitt

Respondent

Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Following a preliminary hearing on 14 February 2024, some of the claimant's complaints of detriment on the ground of having made protected disclosures were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. For the remaining protected disclosure detriment allegations, the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £75.

The deposit order was sent to the claimant on 19 March 2024. The claimant did not pay the deposit, so the remaining protected disclosure detriment complaints were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The judgment records that the claimant's remaining complaints will proceed to a final hearing on 8 to 19 September 2025, but it does not determine those other complaints or award any remedy.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment concerns complaints of detriment on the ground of having made protected disclosures. Some had already been struck out at a preliminary hearing on 14 February 2024; this judgment struck out the remaining protected disclosure detriment complaints because the claimant did not pay the ordered deposit.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.