Case 6008849/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Williams v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008849/2024
- Decision date
- 17 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 3 July 2025, the tribunal made a deposit order in relation to three allegations after hearing submissions from both parties. The order required the claimant to pay a deposit of £525 per allegation within 28 days if she wished to continue pursuing those allegations.
The claimant later emailed the tribunal stating that, because of personal matters, she had been unable to consider the deposit order and had decided not to pay the deposit in order to focus on other matters. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had not been copied into that email as required by rule 90.
Because the 28-day period expired without payment, the tribunal held that, pursuant to rule 40, the three allegations stood struck out. The judgment expressly states that the balance of the claims was unaffected.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out three specific allegations after a deposit order was not paid. It does not identify the underlying statutory claim type for those allegations in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 90 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.