Case 3202657/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Adekemi Aladesuru v London Ambulance Services NHS Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202657/2020
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Adekemi Aladesuru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had two claims of direct race discrimination. On 20 October 2021, a decision on the papers ordered the claimant to pay deposits of £75 per allegation as a condition of advancing each claim. The deposit order was sent to the claimant on 25 October 2021.
The claimant did not pay either deposit. The tribunal therefore struck out each complaint of direct discrimination under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment states that the entirety of the claimant's claims were struck out, and the hearing listed for 19, 20 and 21 January 2022 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | One of the claimant's two direct race discrimination complaints. The tribunal struck the claim out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £75 deposit ordered on 20 October 2021, which was sent on 25 October 2021. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | One of the claimant's two direct race discrimination complaints. The tribunal struck the claim out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £75 deposit ordered on 20 October 2021, which was sent on 25 October 2021. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2020
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.