Case 3300622/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Carrington v Corporation of Cambridge Regional College — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300622/2021
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Carrington
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEJ Hunt struck out specified complaints in Mr J Carrington's case against Corporation of Cambridge Regional College because the claimant had been ordered to pay several deposits of £75 each at a preliminary hearing on 20 May 2025, the order was sent on 27 May 2025, and he had not paid any of the deposits. The strike-out was made under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The struck-out complaints were the reasonable adjustments complaints relying on the alleged PCPs at paragraphs 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(d), 6(e), 6(j), 6(k), 6(m) and 6(n) of the draft list of issues, and the indirect discrimination complaints relying on the alleged PCPs at paragraphs 14(a) and 14(b), 15(f), 15(j), 15(m) and 16(q). The judgment does not determine those complaints on their merits.
The tribunal noted that the hearing listed to commence on 24 September 2025 would still go ahead. It directed the respondent to provide a proposed revised list of issues within 7 days, and said the decision on whether to adopt that revised list would be made by the tribunal hearing the case, or at a preliminary hearing or on the papers if the hearing date were postponed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint alleging failure to make reasonable adjustments, relying on the alleged PCPs at paragraphs 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(d), 6(e), 6(j), 6(k), 6(m) and 6(n) of the draft list of issues. Struck out under rule 39(4) because the claimant had not paid the deposits of £75 each ordered after the preliminary hearing on 20 May 2025. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint alleging indirect discrimination, relying on the alleged PCPs at paragraphs 14(a) and 14(b), 15(f), 15(j), 15(m) and 16(q) of the draft list of issues. Struck out under rule 39(4) because the claimant had not paid the deposits of £75 each ordered after the preliminary hearing on 20 May 2025. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) 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.