Case 6001707/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Stoycheva v XC Trains Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001707/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Stoycheva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had been ordered to pay deposits of £50.00 for each of Allegations 1 to 5 following a preliminary hearing on 28 February 2024. The order was sent to the claimant on 6 March 2024.
The claimant did not pay the deposits for Allegations 1, 3 and 5. Those allegations were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the deposits for Allegations 2 and 4 were paid and those allegations would proceed in accordance with the case management orders.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Allegation 1 was struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the ordered deposit. The allegation concerned a UK national colleague being appointed to a vacant position when the claimant was not. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Allegation 3 was struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the ordered deposit. The judgment describes the allegation as connected with an alleged sexual assault and attendance-management warnings, but does not set out a detailed legal classification. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Other | Allegation 5 was struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the ordered deposit. The judgment describes the allegation as failure to issue a work phone despite requests and as an alleged breach of normal health and safety requirements for on-board staff. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the 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.