Case 2600224/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Ruparelia v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600224/2019
- Decision date
- 13 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Ruparelia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a deposit order dated 19 July 2019, the Tribunal required the claimant to pay a deposit of £1,000 in respect of each of the listed complaints as a condition of being allowed to continue to advance them. The listed complaints were race discrimination, sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and religious discrimination.
The claimant did not make any of the required deposit payments by 9 August 2019. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out those four discrimination complaints under rule 37. No compensation or other remedy was awarded in this judgment.
The claimant's remaining claim, which was then for breach of contract, was not determined in this judgment and remained listed for hearing on 26 September 2019.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay the deposit ordered on 19/07/2019. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay the deposit ordered on 19/07/2019. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay the deposit ordered on 19/07/2019. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to pay the deposit ordered on 19/07/2019. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.