Case 3204633/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr H Deo v CLS Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3204633/2022
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr H Deo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant, Dr H Deo, had not paid the deposits ordered by the tribunal on 25 September 2023, as amended by the Employment Tribunal letter of 29 December 2023. Because of that non-payment, the judgment struck out the claimant's claims for Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination relating to the pleaded matters below.
The struck-out allegations were that the terms of the claimant's contract in relation to his salary were unlawful, that the level of annual bonus paid to him was unlawful, and that the terms of his contract in relation to his occupational pension scheme were unlawful. The judgment states that these matters were advanced either as direct discrimination under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 or under Chapter 3 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment also states that the claimant's remaining claims proceed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Struck out because the Claimant did not pay the deposits ordered on 25 September 2023, as amended by the Employment Tribunal letter of 29 December 2023. The struck-out allegations concerned salary, annual bonus, and occupational pension scheme terms. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out because the Claimant did not pay the deposits ordered on 25 September 2023, as amended by the Employment Tribunal letter of 29 December 2023. The struck-out allegations concerned salary, annual bonus, and occupational pension scheme terms. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.