Case 3308898/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Asif v Home Office — 2024

Case reference: 3308898/2023
Decision date: 18 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Skehan

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms A Asif

Respondent

Home Office

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Following a preliminary hearing on 19 July 2024, the claimant was ordered to pay two deposits of 3100 each. The order was sent to the claimant on 18 September 2024, but the claimant did not pay either deposit.

Because the deposits were not paid, the tribunal struck out all complaints alleging disability discrimination and the race discrimination complaints identified at paragraphs 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the list of issues under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The race discrimination complaint at paragraph 3.2.1 was not struck out by this judgment and remained outstanding, with the listed March 2025 hearing still scheduled at that point.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	All complaints alleging disability discrimination, identified as section 4 of the list of issues, were struck out after the claimant failed to pay the ordered deposit.	Struck out	Disability	—
Race discrimination	The race discrimination complaints itemised at paragraphs 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the list of issues were struck out. The separate race discrimination complaint at paragraph 3.2.1 was not struck out by this judgment and remained to be dealt with separately.	Struck out	Race	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.