Case 3303832/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Sedjukevica v Monolith (UK) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303832/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z Sedjukevica
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a preliminary hearing on 9 January 2025, the Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £20 in respect of each of four specific complaints, with the Order sent to her on 14 February 2025. The Claimant paid a deposit in respect of one complaint only, which she stated related to detriment for asserting a statutory right.
The Employment Judge accordingly struck out the three complaints for which no deposit had been paid: direct sex discrimination, detriment on grounds related to trade union membership or activities, and breach of contract (failure to provide a company car). The strike-out was made under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The hearing was held in private by CVP at Bury St Edmunds before Employment Judge Graham sitting alone. The judgment does not address the remaining complaint for which a deposit was paid, nor does it record any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint struck out under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 following non-payment of the £20 deposit ordered at the 9 January 2025 preliminary hearing. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Trade union | Complaint of detriment on grounds related to trade union membership or activities struck out under rule 40(4) for non-payment of the £20 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint (failure to provide a company car) struck out under rule 40(4) for non-payment of the £20 deposit. | Struck out | — | — |
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.