Deposit order not paid: whistleblowing claim struck out, costs awarded
A former employee's claim for automatically unfair dismissal was struck out after she failed to pay a £500 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The GP surgery also won costs of £3,036.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant lodged a claim on 20 November 2021 using a lengthy online template.
- A deposit order of £500 was made on 19 October 2022 for the section 103A claim, which was not paid.
- The section 103A claim was struck out on 10 March 2023 for non-payment of the deposit.
- The respondent applied to strike out the remaining claims for non-compliance with case management orders.
- The tribunal refused to strike out but made an unless order for provision of disability-related documents.
- The respondent's costs application succeeded; the claimant was ordered to pay £3,036.
Timeline
-
Events giving rise to claim
The claim relates to matters from June 2020 onwards.
-
Claim lodged
The claimant lodged a claim using a lengthy online template.
-
First preliminary hearing
Hearing to clarify claims and consider strike out/deposit orders.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Further clarification; deposit order made for section 103A claim.
-
Deposit order sent
Reserved judgment ordering claimant to pay £500 deposit.
-
Reconsideration application
Claimant applied for reconsideration of deposit order.
-
Reconsideration refused
Reserved judgment refusing reconsideration.
-
Section 103A claim struck out
Claim struck out for non-payment of deposit.
-
Third preliminary hearing
Hearing to consider respondent's strike out and costs applications.
-
Judgment on strike out and costs
Strike out refused; unless order made; costs of £3,036 awarded.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's claim for automatically unfair dismissal (public interest disclosure) should be struck out for failing to pay a deposit, and whether the respondent's applications to strike out the remaining claims and for costs should be granted.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's section 103A claim for automatically unfair dismissal because she did not pay the £500 deposit ordered on 19 October 2022. The respondent's application to strike out the remaining claims was refused, but an unless order was made requiring the claimant to provide disability-related documents. The respondent's costs application succeeded, and the claimant was ordered to pay £3,036.
- Strike out of section 103A claim: automatic under Rule 39(4) for non-payment of deposit.
- Remaining claims: not struck out; unless order made.
- Costs award: £3,036 (inclusive of VAT) for unreasonable conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a tribunal orders you to pay a deposit as a condition of pursuing a claim, you must pay it by the deadline or the claim will be automatically struck out.
- Failing to comply with case management orders can lead to costs orders, even if the claim is not struck out.
- Using a lengthy online template without properly tailoring it can make it harder to clarify your claims and may lead to adverse costs.
- Lay representatives should ensure they attend hearings prepared with the necessary information to avoid delays and additional hearings.
This case shows how procedural failures can derail a claim, even if the underlying allegations might have merit. The former employee brought a claim for automatically unfair dismissal linked to public interest disclosures against Riverside Surgery. However, the tribunal had serious concerns about the prospects of that claim and ordered a £500 deposit as a condition of proceeding. When the deposit was not paid, the claim was struck out automatically.
What went wrong
The claimant had purchased an online template and submitted a claim of over 80 pages. At preliminary hearings, the tribunal tried to clarify the issues, but the lay representative was not prepared with the necessary information. A deposit order was made in October 2022, but the claimant did not pay it and applied for reconsideration, which was refused. The deposit remained unpaid, leading to the strike-out of the whistleblowing claim.
Costs and consequences
The respondent applied to strike out the remaining claims for non-compliance with case management orders. The tribunal refused to strike out but made an unless order, giving the claimant one last chance to provide disability-related documents. However, the respondent's costs application succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in pursuing the section 103A claim without paying the deposit and in failing to comply with orders. Costs of £3,036 were awarded against her.
Key takeaway
Tribunals expect parties to follow procedural rules. A deposit order is not optional – it must be paid or the claim will be struck out. Similarly, failing to comply with case management orders can lead to costs, even if the claim survives. For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, it is essential to take procedural requirements seriously and seek proper legal advice if needed.
Similar cases
Head teacher's discrimination and whistleblowing claims survive strike-out bid
An employment tribunal has refused to strike out most claims brought by a former head teacher against Darul Uloom Al Arabiya Al Islamia, including allegations of disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. However, the reasonable adjustments claim was ordered to be subject to a deposit order hearing.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.