Mr Stuart FaddenClaimantAvensure LtdRespondentDate 17 February 2023
JUDGMENT
[1]By an Order made on 7 October 2021, any allegation or argument in respect of each of:(1) public interest disclosure detriment contrary to sections 47B and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996;(2) constructive unfair dismissal contrary to sections 95(1)(c) and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (public interest disclosure); and(3) constructive unfair dismissal contrary to sections 95(1)(c) and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ordinary unfair dismissal) in the claim was made subject to separate respective deposit orders under rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[2]The Tribunal required the claimant to pay a deposit in the sum of £500 in respect of each of those three complaints (or £1,500 in total) by 18 November 2021 as a condition of continuing to advance those allegations or arguments. The Tribunal considered that they had little reasonable prospect of success.[3]The claimant has failed to pay the deposits ordered in time or at all. Accordingly, the specific allegations or arguments to which the deposit order related are now struck out under rule 39. Judge Brian Doyle Date: 22 December 2021 1 of 2 Case Number: 2413405/2020 23 December 2021 2 of 2
REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 13 January 2023 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because• the claimant had not complied with the Orders of the Tribunal made at the hearing on 28 June 2021; and of the letter of 28 February 2022.• it has not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant replied on 20 January 2023 apologising , and explaining why he had not been able to give the matter his full attention , and asking for his claim of unlawful deductions from wages to be heard if at all possible.[3]The Tribunal wrote further to the claimant on 2 February 2023 telling him that he must set out in precise terms what he is claiming, and where that has been set out in the claim form or other documents , and must also provide a full explanation of why he has not complied with the Tribunal’s orders. He was required to reply by 9 February 2023.[4]The claimant has not replied, and thus has failed to make any sufficient representations, why claim this should not be struck out , or to request a hearing. The claim is therefore struck out.[5]The hearing fixed for 27 February 2023 will not take place.