Case 3308966/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Knorpel v Fujitsu Services Ltd and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308966/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr P Knorpel
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 13 January 2025 Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst made a deposit order in respect of the claimant's direct sex discrimination and harassment related to sex allegations, requiring payment by 10 February 2025. The claimant did not pay by that date.
On 11 February 2025 the claimant wrote asking for an extension of time and stating that he had sent the deposit cheque in respect of one allegation, but the tribunal held that the application came too late. The respondent relied on rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, which the tribunal described as being in strict terms.
Because no deposit had been paid in time and no in-time application for an extension had been made, the relevant allegations were struck out. The judgment records that the claimant's direct sex discrimination claims and harassment related to sex claims were therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's direct sex discrimination allegations at paragraphs 2.1.2(a)-(k) were struck out after he failed to pay the deposit by the date specified in the deposit order. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The claimant's harassment related to sex allegations at paragraphs 2.2.1(a)(i)-(vi), (b) and (c) were struck out for the same failure to pay the ordered deposit in time. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.