Mr P Setlik v Biopure Technology Ltd — 2025

Mr Setlik presented his claim on 6 August 2024, and at case management Employment Judge Ferguson identified it as unfair dismissal and direct sexual orientation discrimination. In the earlier preliminary hearing on the Respondent's strike out or deposit application, Employment Judge Hughes made a deposit order on two allegations that, in commencing disciplinary proceedings and in dismissing the Claimant, the Respondent had directly discriminated against him. The deposit was set at £50 on each allegation, and the reasons recorded that the Claimant's different accounts about the tweets in issue were implausible and in tension with one another.

The Claimant then asked for reconsideration by email, raising complaints about fairness, disability-related adjustments, interpreter quality, disclosure, bias, and respondent conduct. Applying Rules 68, 69 and 70 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024/1155, and referring to T W White & Sons Ltd v White and Newcastle upon Tyne City Council v Marsden, Judge Hughes held that there was no reasonable prospect of the deposit order being varied or revoked. He found that the order had not been made under pressure, that the Claimant's medical condition and lack of representation did not alter the position, that the interpreter complaint added nothing new, and that the alleged procedural breaches and other criticisms did not go to the deposit order. The reconsideration application was therefore refused.