Deposit order error didn't save unfair dismissal claim against Wetherspoon

This case shows how procedural issues can complicate an employment claim, but ultimately the strength of the case itself is what matters. The former employee brought multiple claims against J D Wetherspoon plc, but withdrew all except unfair dismissal. The tribunal had ordered a £150 deposit to continue that claim, but a clerical error by the tribunal—sending the wrong payment address—led to a strike-out. Once the error was discovered, the strike-out was revoked and the claim reinstated.

At the final hearing, however, the tribunal found that the dismissal was not unfair. The claimant had been dismissed on 14 October 2020, and the evidence did not support a finding that the employer acted unreasonably. The deposit paid to continue the claim was forfeited to the respondent.

What could have been done differently?

The employer's processes appear to have been sound, but the tribunal's own administrative error created unnecessary delay and confusion. For claimants, this case highlights the importance of checking payment details and acting promptly. For employers, it reinforces that even when procedural hiccups occur, a well-documented dismissal can still be upheld.

Why this matters

This case is a reminder that deposit orders are a real hurdle—failure to pay can end a claim before it is heard. But even if that hurdle is cleared, the claim must still succeed on its merits. Claimants should carefully assess the strength of their case before pursuing it, especially when facing a deposit order.