Claim struck out over deposit: a procedural error that almost cost the case
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after she failed to pay a £300 deposit. The tribunal later revoked the strike-out because the deposit order was sent to the wrong email address.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #deposit-order
- #strike-out
- #reconsideration
- #failure-to-pay-deposit
- #incorrect-email-address
Key facts
- The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £300 to pursue her claims.
- The deposit order was sent to the claimant's solicitor at an incorrect email address and bounced back.
- The claimant's solicitor knew about the deposit order from the hearing but did not inquire further.
- The claim was struck out for non-payment of the deposit.
- The reconsideration application was initially refused but later the judgment was revoked due to the service error.
Timeline
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Wade made a deposit order requiring the claimant to pay £300 (three claims at £100 each) as a condition of proceeding.
-
Deposit order sent
The deposit order was sent by email to the claimant's solicitor at [email protected] but the email address was incorrect (spelled 'Mathew') and the email bounced back.
-
Strike-out judgment
Employment Judge Brain struck out the claim because the deposit was not paid.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant's solicitor applied for reconsideration, claiming the deposit order was not received.
-
Reconsideration judgment (refusal)
Employment Judge Brain refused the reconsideration application, finding the deposit order was properly served.
-
Reconsideration judgment sent
The reconsideration judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Tribunal discovers email error
The Tribunal clerk discovered the email address error and notified the parties.
-
Judgment on own initiative
Employment Judge Brain found that the reconsideration application had reasonable prospects due to the service error, and set a reconsideration hearing.
-
Reconsideration hearing
The reconsideration hearing was held by CVP.
-
Judgment upon reconsideration
Employment Judge Brain revoked the earlier judgments and extended time for compliance with the deposit order until 8 October 2021.
The legal issue
Whether the claim should be struck out for non-payment of a deposit when the deposit order was sent to the wrong email address, and whether the strike-out judgment should be reconsidered in the interests of justice.
The outcome
The tribunal initially struck out the former employee's unfair dismissal claim for failing to pay a £300 deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing. The deposit order was sent to her solicitor's email address, but the address was misspelt and the email bounced back.
On reconsideration, the tribunal found that the deposit order had not been properly served because of the email error. The strike-out judgment was revoked, and the former employee was given an extended deadline to pay the deposit.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was reinstated.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always check that tribunal orders are received, especially if you know an order has been made but haven't seen it in writing.
- A deposit order must be properly served before a claim can be struck out for non-payment – an incorrect email address can invalidate service.
- Solicitors should ensure their contact details on file with the tribunal are accurate and monitor bounced emails.
- If a claim is struck out, you can apply for reconsideration within 14 days if there was a procedural error.
This case shows how a simple administrative error – a misspelt email address – can derail an employment claim, and how the tribunal can put things right when the error comes to light.
What happened
The former employee was ordered to pay a £300 deposit as a condition of proceeding with her unfair dismissal claims. Her solicitor attended the hearing where the order was made, so he knew about it. But the written order was sent to an email address with a typo – 'Mathew' instead of 'Matthew' – and the email bounced back. Neither the solicitor nor the tribunal noticed the problem until after the claim had been struck out for non-payment.
When the solicitor applied for reconsideration, the tribunal initially refused, saying the order had been properly served. But when the tribunal clerk later discovered the email error, the judge took the unusual step of reconsidering on his own initiative. He revoked the strike-out and gave the former employee extra time to pay the deposit.
What the losing side could have done differently
The solicitor knew the deposit order had been made at the hearing. If he had not received written confirmation within a few days, he should have contacted the tribunal to check. A simple follow-up would have avoided the strike-out and the months of delay.
Why this matters
The case is a reminder that procedural rules are applied strictly, but the tribunal has discretion to correct mistakes that are not the claimant's fault. For anyone pursuing a claim, it is essential to keep the tribunal updated with correct contact details and to chase up missing documents. For solicitors, it is a cautionary tale about the importance of checking that all correspondence is received.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Project engineer with under two years' service has unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out
A tribunal struck out a project engineer's unfair dismissal, sexual orientation discrimination, and wrongful dismissal claims after he was sacked for sending a confidential email to colleagues. His sex discrimination claim survived but required a £200 deposit.
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to pay tribunal deposit
The employment tribunal struck out all three claims brought by a former employee against Openwork Limited after he failed to pay a deposit order. The tribunal also refused his applications for an extension of time and reconsideration.