Case 3302527/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Reginaldo Rangel Pereira v Richarlison de Andrade — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302527/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Reginaldo Rangel Pereira
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a deposit order sent on 18 March 2025, which required payment by 4pm on 14 April 2025. It found the deposit had not been paid by that date and recorded that HMCTS records were accurate, so the date of payment was 16 June 2025; alternatively, if those records were wrong, the postal order was received no earlier than 15 June 2025.
On that basis, paragraph 3 of the judgment initially stated that, by operation of Rule 40(4), the allegation or argument that the unfair dismissal claim was in time had to be struck out. The tribunal then revoked that decision, extended time for payment of the deposit to 16 April 2025, and treated the deposit as having been paid in time.
As a result, the unfair dismissal complaint did not stand struck out. The judgment states that the complaint is subject to case management orders sent separately. No substantive merits decision or monetary remedy is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dealt with a deposit-payment issue affecting whether the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. It held the complaint did not stand struck out after extending time for payment of the deposit to 16 April 2025 and deeming the deposit paid in time. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 40(4)
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.