Case 2501007/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Smith v Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501007/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of GBP 50 per allegation after a preliminary hearing on 28-29 August 2025. The claimant did not pay the deposit by the date specified in the deposit order, so the complaints contained in that order were struck out under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal directed that any monies paid by the claimant in attempted compliance with the deposit order should be returned to her. The judgment also stated that it did not affect the claimant's ability to pursue her complaint that on 3 August 2023 she was subject to less favourable treatment because of race.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the complaints contained in the deposit order are struck out, but does not identify those complaints in the available text. It expressly states that the claimant's complaint of less favourable treatment because of race on 3 August 2023 is unaffected and may continue. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.