Case 2501307/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Derera v Duranta Teesside Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501307/2023
- Decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Derera
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had been ordered to pay a £60 deposit, and that the order was sent to him on 6 March 2024. The claimant did not pay the deposit, so the listed complaints were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The struck-out parts were complaint 2, complaint 4a, complaint 4c, complaint 5, and complaint 6b. The judgment also recorded that complaint 2 and complaint 5 were struck out when pleaded as part of continuing acts with other complaints. No remedy was awarded by this judgment.
The judgment stated that the remaining claims stayed listed for a Preliminary Hearing (Case Management) on 13 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint 2 - the respondent failed to take action when the claimant said his signature was forged. The judgment also struck this complaint out when pleaded as part of a continuing act with complaints 4 and/or 5 and/or 6. Struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of the £60 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint 4a - the claimant was singled out for disciplinary action and sent a letter of concern on 10 June 2023. Struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of the £60 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint 4c - the claimant was given a verbal warning on 15 September 2022 for leaving the building without signing out. Struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of the £60 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint 5 - the respondent failed to act on the claimant’s complaints of discrimination at meetings on 13 June 2022 and 21 July 2022 with Paul Iveson and Rebecca Newsome (HR). The judgment also struck this complaint out when pleaded as part of continuing acts with complaints 4 and/or 6, and with complaint 2 and/or 4 and/or 6. Struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of the £60 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint 6b - after reporting discrimination the claimant was said to have been harassed by vexatious disciplinary actions based on baseless allegations, including the 15 September 2022 verbal warning for leaving the building without signing out. Struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of the £60 deposit. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.