Case 3320591/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A B v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320591/2021
- Decision date
- 15 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A B
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only claim identified in the judgment was a complaint of direct sex discrimination, described as the claimant's allegation that the initial reporting of him by a colleague amounted to sex discrimination. The case was before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, and the judgment records that a preliminary hearing on 11 November 2022 resulted in an order requiring the claimant to pay a £100 deposit.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to pay the deposit. On that basis, and by reference to rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the complaint was struck out. No substantive determination of the discrimination allegation is recorded in the judgment.
The judgment does not record any compensatory award, injury to feelings award, or other monetary remedy. The only monetary figure mentioned is the £100 deposit order, which was a procedural deposit rather than a remedy awarded to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal struck out the direct sex discrimination complaint because the claimant failed to pay a £100 deposit ordered after a preliminary hearing on 11 November 2022. The order was sent on 30 December 2022, and the tribunal referred to rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.