Case 2600473/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Smith v Nottingham City Transport Ltd — 2021

Case reference: 2600473/2019
Decision date: 14 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Victoria Butler

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Smith

Respondent

Nottingham City Transport Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Following a preliminary hearing on 9 June 2021, Employment Judge Victoria Butler ordered the claimant to pay a £50 deposit in respect of allegations 4, 8 and 11. The order was sent to the claimant on 10 June 2021. The judgment records that the claimant failed to pay the deposit.

Because the deposit was not paid, allegations 8 and 11 were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Allegation 8 concerned an asserted statement by Mr Potgeiter to the claimant's trade union representative that the claimant had blackmailed the respondent, and allegation 11 concerned the claimant being accused of blackmail by Mr Potegieter. The hearing listed for 31 August 2021 was to proceed on any remaining complaints.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Allegation 8: Mr Potgeiter told the claimant's trade union representative that the claimant had blackmailed the respondent. Struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of a £50 deposit ordered on 9 June 2021.	Struck out	—	—
Other	Allegation 11: the claimant was accused of blackmail by Mr Potegieter. Struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of a £50 deposit ordered on 9 June 2021.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.