Case 3303185/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Damon Goodyear v Mark Rutherford School Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303185/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Damon Goodyear
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal had previously ordered the claimant to pay a £50 deposit if he wished to continue to advance allegations of indirect age discrimination based on an alleged provision, criterion or practice described as bringing disciplinary allegations vexatiously against him and/or calling into question his capability without good cause and otherwise than in accordance with the capability policy. The order gave the claimant until 16 May 2025 to pay the deposit.
The judgment records that the claimant failed to pay the deposit by the deadline. As a result, the allegations of indirect age discrimination were struck out under r.40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. No compensation or other monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant had been required to pay a £50 deposit to continue advancing allegations of indirect age discrimination founded on the stated provision, criterion or practice. The deposit was not paid by 16 May 2025, so the allegations were struck out under r.40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- r.40(4) 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.