Case 2500639/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Dean v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500639/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Dean
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of £3,250 following preliminary hearings held on 22 October 2024 and 27 January 2025. The order was sent to the claimant on 13 March 2025.
The claimant failed to pay the deposit. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, harassment related to disability, and disability discrimination under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay a £3,250 deposit ordered following preliminary hearings. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay a £3,250 deposit ordered following preliminary hearings. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment describes this as harassment related to disability. It was struck out after the claimant failed to pay a £3,250 deposit ordered following preliminary hearings. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay a £3,250 deposit ordered following preliminary hearings. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.