Deposit non-payment leads to strike-out of race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims
A customer service advisor's claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination were struck out after he failed to pay a £2,000 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The deposit was required because his claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a customer service advisor from 31 January 2018 until dismissal on 29 June 2021.
- The claimant went on sick leave on 26 September 2020 and did not return before dismissal.
- The claimant's claims of race discrimination before 26 September 2020 were dismissed as out of time.
- The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £2000 to continue his remaining claims.
- The claimant failed to pay the deposit, resulting in automatic strike-out of all claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a customer service advisor.
-
Part-time work request denied
Claimant alleges he was denied part-time work while white colleagues were allowed.
-
Changed department to customer services
Claimant moved to customer services and reduced hours.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant commenced sickness absence due to stress.
-
Dismissed
Claimant was dismissed on grounds of capability after 9 months' absence.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Shotter held a preliminary hearing; deposit order of £2000 made.
-
Strike-out judgment
Employment Judge Ainscough struck out all claims due to non-payment of deposit.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claimant's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims because he failed to pay a deposit ordered under Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, after the tribunal found the claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all remaining claims because the claimant did not pay the £2,000 deposit ordered by Employment Judge Shotter. The deposit was required as a condition of continuing proceedings after the tribunal found the claims had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not appeal the deposit order and did not provide credible evidence of his means to pay.
- The tribunal had already dismissed historical race discrimination claims as out of time.
- The remaining claims (unfair dismissal and post-September 2020 race discrimination) were struck out due to non-payment of the deposit.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a tribunal orders you to pay a deposit to continue your claim, you must pay it by the deadline or your claim will be automatically struck out.
- Deposit orders are made when the tribunal thinks your claim has little reasonable prospect of success – you can appeal the order if you disagree.
- When asked about your finances at a deposit hearing, provide clear and truthful evidence of your means; the tribunal may not accept vague or inconsistent oral evidence.
- Claims that are out of time will be dismissed unless you can persuade the tribunal to extend time on a just and equitable basis – this is a high hurdle.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the serious consequences of failing to comply with a tribunal's deposit order. The claimant, a customer service advisor with three years' service, was dismissed on capability grounds after nine months' sick leave. He brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination. However, at a preliminary hearing, the tribunal found that his claims had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered him to pay a £2,000 deposit to continue. The claimant did not pay, and all remaining claims were struck out.
The tribunal had already dismissed his historical race discrimination claims as out of time. The deposit order covered the remaining claims – unfair dismissal and race discrimination relating to his dismissal. The claimant argued he could not afford the deposit, but the tribunal found his oral evidence on means 'less than credible' and noted he had not provided any documentary evidence of his finances.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided the strike-out by paying the deposit or appealing the deposit order. If he genuinely could not afford it, he should have provided clear financial evidence to the tribunal at the hearing. Instead, he gave inconsistent oral evidence without supporting documents. He also could have sought advice from a solicitor or an advice agency about the deposit order and the strength of his claims.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals have robust case management powers to filter out weak claims. A deposit order is a serious step – it means the tribunal thinks your claim has little reasonable prospect of success. If you receive one, you must either pay it, appeal it, or provide compelling evidence of inability to pay. Failure to do so will end your claim. For employees considering a tribunal claim, it is essential to assess the strength of your case early and to comply with all tribunal orders.
Similar cases
Lorry driver with 18 days' service: unfair dismissal struck out but discrimination claims survive
A lorry driver who resigned after 18 days and later worked as an agency driver was unable to claim unfair dismissal due to short service, but his disability and race discrimination claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Short-service employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out; discrimination claims survive with deposit order
A former employee of Shaw Trust had his unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out because he had less than two years' service. His race and sex discrimination claims were partially struck out and partially subject to a £5 deposit order.
Administrative employee's race discrimination claim allowed to proceed despite short service
An employment tribunal has allowed a race discrimination claim to proceed against London Road Surgery, but struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the employee had less than two years' service.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.