Social worker's claim dismissed after failing to comply with deposit and unless orders
A social worker with 12 years' service had her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims dismissed after she failed to comply with a deposit order and an unless order. Her application to set aside the dismissal was refused.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a social worker for 12 years and was dismissed on 22 September 2020.
- The claimant submitted an ET1 claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination on 30 January 2023.
- Employment Judge Rogerson ordered the claimant to pay two deposits of £20 each by 23 June 2023 to continue both claims.
- The claimant paid only one deposit of £20 on 9 June 2023.
- Employment Judge Miller made an Unless Order on 14 July 2023 requiring the claimant to specify which claim she was pursuing by 21 July 2023.
- The claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order, and her claims were dismissed on 23 August 2023.
Timeline
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended.
-
Early conciliation started
ACAS early conciliation began (Day A).
-
Early conciliation ended
ACAS early conciliation ended (Day B).
-
Claim submitted
The claimant submitted her ET1 claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Rogerson held a preliminary hearing and ordered the claimant to pay two deposits of £20 each by 23 June 2023.
-
First deposit paid
The claimant paid one deposit of £20 by postal order.
-
Unless Order made
Employment Judge Miller made an Unless Order requiring the claimant to specify which claim she was pursuing by 21 July 2023.
-
Deadline for compliance
The claimant sent a second postal order to the wrong address but did not specify which claim she was pursuing.
-
Claims dismissed
The claimant was notified that her claims were dismissed due to non-compliance with the Unless Order.
-
Application to set aside
The claimant emailed the Tribunal to appeal the dismissal, treated as an application to set aside the Unless Order.
-
Hearing
Employment Judge Miller considered the application in chambers.
-
Judgment issued
The application to set aside the Unless Order was refused, and the claims remain dismissed.
The legal issue
Whether it is in the interests of justice to set aside an unless order that dismissed the claimant's claims for failure to specify which claim she was pursuing after paying only one of two required deposits.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to set aside the dismissal of her claims. The claims were originally dismissed due to non-compliance with an unless order that required her to specify which claim she was pursuing after she paid only one of two required deposits. The tribunal found that the claimant had not complied with the unless order, had not shown a good reason for the non-compliance, and had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success for her claims. No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a tribunal orders you to pay a deposit to continue a claim, you must pay the full amount by the deadline or risk having your claim dismissed.
- An unless order is a final warning – if you do not comply exactly with its terms, your claim will be automatically dismissed.
- When communicating with the tribunal, always copy the other side unless you are specifically told not to.
- If you miss a deadline, act quickly and explain why – the tribunal may consider a set-aside application if there is a good reason.
- Tribunals expect litigants in person to follow procedural rules just as strictly as represented parties.
A procedural failure ends a claim before it can be heard
This case shows how strictly employment tribunals enforce procedural orders, even for litigants in person. The claimant, a social worker with 12 years' service, was dismissed in September 2020. She brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in January 2023. At a preliminary hearing in May 2023, an employment judge ordered her to pay two deposits of £20 each by 23 June 2023 to continue both claims, as they were considered to have little reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant paid only one deposit of £20 on 9 June 2023. She did not pay the second deposit. On 14 July 2023, another judge made an unless order requiring her to specify by 21 July 2023 which claim she was pursuing. The claimant sent a second postal order to the wrong address but did not specify which claim she was pursuing. As a result, her claims were dismissed on 23 August 2023.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided dismissal by simply paying both deposits on time and then complying with the unless order by clearly stating which claim she wanted to pursue. Even after missing the first deadline, she could have applied to the tribunal for an extension or explained her circumstances. Instead, she sent a postal order to the wrong address and did not address the unless order's requirement to specify her claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that procedural compliance is essential in employment tribunal claims. Tribunals have wide powers to manage cases and will dismiss claims if orders are not followed. The fact that the claimant was a litigant in person did not excuse her non-compliance. Anyone bringing a claim should take tribunal orders seriously, seek advice if needed, and ensure all deadlines are met. The tribunal's decision to refuse the set-aside application was based on the lack of a good reason for non-compliance and the weak prospects of the underlying claims.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
Strike-out for deaf former employee who tried to add new claims late
A tribunal struck out a deaf former employee's disability discrimination claim after she failed to comply with directions and attempted to add new claims that went beyond her original ET1.