Case 3303044/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Samuyiwa v Wincanton Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303044/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Samuyiwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerns complaints of age discrimination and sex discrimination that the Respondent did not pay the Claimant his notice pay and holiday pay immediately. A deposit order dated 25 February 2025 required the Claimant to pay £200 in total in respect of those allegations within 21 days.
The tribunal recorded that the deposit had not been paid by 15 March 2025, and that on 19 March 2025 the Claimant emailed the tribunal indicating that he did not wish to pursue the complaints subject to deposit orders. The tribunal stated that rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 required it to strike out complaints where the deposit had not been paid, and those complaints were struck out.
The judgment states that the Claimant's remaining claims continue. It does not determine those remaining claims or make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Complaint that the Respondent did not pay the Claimant his notice pay and holiday pay immediately was struck out under rule 40(4) after the deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaint that the Respondent did not pay the Claimant his notice pay and holiday pay immediately was struck out under rule 40(4) after the deposit was not paid. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.