Case 3200846/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Barbe v Bow School and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200846/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Dated
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Y Barbe
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with three claims: automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and detriment for a prescribed reason (pregnancy, childbirth or maternity) contrary to section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996. These claims had each been made the subject of a deposit order of £10.00 at a preliminary hearing on 14 February 2023, making £30.00 in total.
The reasons record that the deposit order was sent to the claimant on 14 March 2023 and that the claimant failed to pay the deposits. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the three claims under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
No substantive liability findings or remedy assessment were made on the merits of the claims, and no compensation award was recorded. The decision is therefore a procedural strike-out decision based on non-payment of the ordered deposits rather than a determination of the underlying allegations.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 100 ERA 1996; struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £10 deposit ordered for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 99 ERA 1996; struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £10 deposit ordered for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Detriment for a prescribed reason (pregnancy, childbirth or maternity) contrary to section 47C ERA 1996; struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £10 deposit ordered for this claim. | 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.