Case 3315466/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Providor Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3315466/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 6 September 2021, Employment Judge Meiklejohn made a deposit order under rule 39 because the claimant's assertion that his dismissal was unfair was considered to have little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was ordered to pay a £250 deposit as a condition of continuing to advance that assertion.
The judgment states that the claimant failed to pay the deposit order, and that the unfair dismissal assertion was therefore struck out in accordance with rule 39(4). The tribunal then gave the claimant until 21 January 2022 to provide written reasons, or to request a hearing, explaining why the claim should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 37(1)(a). No substantive liability finding or compensation award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal assertion under rule 37(1)(a) after the claimant failed to pay a £250 deposit ordered under rule 39 and did not provide acceptable written reasons or request a hearing when invited to do so. The extracted text records the deposit-order date as 6 October 2022, which is inconsistent with the judgment date of 9 February 2022; the outcome and deposit amount are otherwise clear. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 39 deposit order
- rule 39(4)
- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
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.