Case 2408294/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Sokratis Lasdas v Venturi Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408294/2022
- Decision date
- 1 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Sokratis Lasdas
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with allegations of direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and indirect race discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. It ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £100 in respect of each allegation as a condition of continuing to advance those claims.
The claimant was required to pay both deposits within 10 days from the date the order was sent to the parties. The reasons record that he failed to pay the deposit(s).
Because the deposits were not paid, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the discrimination allegations or any monetary award beyond the deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal ordered a £100 deposit as a condition of continuing the allegation of direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010, and a separate £100 deposit as a condition of continuing the allegation of indirect race discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010. The claimant did not pay the deposits within 10 days, so the claim was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal ordered a £100 deposit as a condition of continuing the allegation of indirect race discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010, and a separate £100 deposit as a condition of continuing the allegation of direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The claimant did not pay the deposits within 10 days, so the claim was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 19 Equality Act 2010
- 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.