Case 4103007/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v S Rutherford and Borders Direct Payment Agency T/a Encompass — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103007/2023
- Decision date
- 31 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluskey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge recorded that the claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit of £90 by 6 November 2024, by order dated 22 August 2024 and sent to the claimant on 23 August 2024. The claimant did not pay by that date, although the deposit was later paid on 3 January 2025.
Applying rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal noted that if the depositor fails to pay by the date specified, the tribunal must strike out the specific allegation or argument to which the deposit order relates. The relevant allegations were those contained in Order (NINTH) of the Tribunal's Determination of 31 July 2024, namely the claimant's subsisting claim so far as directed against the third named respondent.
The tribunal therefore struck out those allegations in accordance with rule 40(4). No monetary remedy was assessed or awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claimant's subsisting claim, so far as directed against the third named respondent, because the claimant failed to pay the £90 deposit by the specified date. The order refers to the allegations in Order (NINTH) of the Tribunal's Determination of 31 July 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
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.