Case 3313187/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Q St Luce Rabib v DePaul UK — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313187/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge QUILL Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Q St Luce Rabib
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 7 August 2023, Employment Judge Quill ordered the claimant to pay seven deposits of £50 each. The order was sent to the claimant on 9 August 2023, but the judgment records that no deposits were paid.
Because the deposits were not paid, the tribunal struck out the direct race discrimination complaints identified at paragraphs 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of the list of issues, the harassment complaints identified at paragraphs 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, and the whole victimisation complaint, which was based only on the detriments at paragraphs 5.3.1 to 5.3.3. The judgment states that these complaints were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment notes that the hearing remained listed to proceed on the remaining claims, and invites either party to write to the tribunal and the other party if they consider the hearing should be shortened.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints identified at paragraphs 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of the list of issues. They were struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay any of the seven deposits of £50 ordered at the preliminary hearing on 7 August 2023. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaints identified at paragraphs 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of the list of issues. The judgment describes them as harassment complaints whether related to race or disability. They were struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of the deposits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The entire victimisation complaint was struck out because the only detriments were those in paragraphs 5.3.1 to 5.3.3 of the list of issues and each of those allegations was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.