Case 3200161/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Khanum v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200161/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Khanum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the Claimant had been ordered, following a preliminary hearing on 1 September 2022, to pay a £1,000 deposit by 14 October 2022 in relation to her unfair dismissal claim. The order was sent on 5 September 2022, and the Claimant did not pay the deposit. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out under Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Claimant had also been ordered to send a Schedule of Loss to the Tribunal and the Respondent by 14 October 2022 under an Unless Order. She did not do so. The remaining race discrimination complaint was therefore struck out under Rules 38(1) and 37(1)(c), and the hearing listed for 5 to 8 December 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under Rule 39(4) after the Claimant failed to pay a £1,000 deposit ordered by 14 October 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination complaint was struck out under Rules 38(1) and 37(1)(c) after the Claimant failed to provide a Schedule of Loss in accordance with an Unless Order. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) 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.