Case 2413405/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stuart Fadden v Avensure Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413405/2020
- Decision date
- 23 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stuart Fadden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 7 October 2021 the Tribunal made separate deposit orders under rule 39 in relation to three allegations or arguments in Mr Stuart Fadden's claim against Avensure Ltd: public interest disclosure detriment under ss.47B and 48 ERA 1996, constructive unfair dismissal based on public interest disclosure under ss.95(1)(c) and 103A ERA 1996, and constructive unfair dismissal based on ordinary unfair dismissal under ss.95(1)(c) and 98 ERA 1996. The Tribunal required a deposit of £500 for each complaint, £1,500 in total, because it considered each had little reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant did not pay the deposits by the deadline of 18 November 2021 or at all. As a result, the specific allegations or arguments covered by the deposit orders were struck out under rule 39. The judgment records the strike-out order dated 22 December 2021 and sent to the parties on 23 December 2021. No substantive merits decision or monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | By order dated 7 October 2021, a £500 deposit was ordered for the allegation of public interest disclosure detriment under ss.47B and 48 ERA 1996. The Tribunal considered it had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not pay the deposit by 18 November 2021 or at all, so the allegation was struck out under rule 39. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | By order dated 7 October 2021, a £500 deposit was ordered for the allegation of constructive unfair dismissal under ss.95(1)(c) and 103A ERA 1996 (public interest disclosure). The Tribunal considered it had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not pay the deposit by 18 November 2021 or at all, so the allegation was struck out under rule 39. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | By order dated 7 October 2021, a £500 deposit was ordered for the allegation of constructive unfair dismissal under ss.95(1)(c) and 98 ERA 1996 (ordinary unfair dismissal). The Tribunal considered it had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not pay the deposit by 18 November 2021 or at all, so the allegation was struck out under rule 39. | 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.