Case 2601644/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Phoenix v United Lincolnshire Hospital NHS Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601644/2019
- Decision date
- 8 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Phoenix
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy deposit orders dated 14 November 2019, the Tribunal required the claimant to pay a £200 deposit for each allegation of disability discrimination, ordinary unfair dismissal, and unfair dismissal for whistle-blowing if she wished to continue to advance those allegations. The orders were made as a condition of the claims proceeding.
No payment was received from the claimant. On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed all of the claims. The judgment records that the hearings listed for 23 January 2020 and 10, 12 and 13 February 2020 were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal had made a deposit order dated 14 November 2019 requiring a £200 deposit for each allegation of disability discrimination as a condition of continuing to advance it. No payment was received, and the claim was dismissed under rule 37. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal had made a deposit order dated 14 November 2019 requiring a £200 deposit for the ordinary unfair dismissal allegation as a condition of continuing to advance it. No payment was received, and the claim was dismissed under rule 37. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal had made a deposit order dated 14 November 2019 requiring a £200 deposit for the unfair dismissal for whistle-blowing allegation as a condition of continuing to advance it. No payment was received, and the claim was dismissed under rule 37. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
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.