Case 3202348/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Seeger v Steinhoff UK Retail Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202348/2019
- Decision date
- 24 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Seeger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 27 April 2020, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay two separate deposits of £300. The order was sent to the claimant on 28 April 2020 and payment was required by 2 June 2020.
The claimant did not pay the deposits. As a result, the tribunal struck out the complaints of direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any merits findings or substantive remedy because those complaints were struck out before hearing. A further preliminary hearing to consider the constructive dismissal complaint was listed for 3 August 2020 for one hour.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the ordered deposits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the ordered deposits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.