Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to pay £300 deposit
A tribunal struck out claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and detriment for protected disclosures after the claimant failed to pay a £300 deposit order. The unlawful deductions claim was also struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct in May 2021 after altering staff time records.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about an insurance claim, mask-wearing, and staff overpayments.
- The claimant failed to pay a deposit order of £300 made on 16 June 2022.
- The claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and detriment for protected disclosures were struck out for non-payment of the deposit.
- A claim for unlawful deductions from wages from 2012 was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Protected disclosure about insurance claim
The claimant discussed with his manager whether an insurance claim made in 2016 was misleading.
-
Protected disclosures about mask-wearing
Between June and September 2020, the claimant made oral disclosures about visitors not wearing masks at the care home.
-
Protected disclosure about staff overpayments
In August or September 2020, the claimant complained about staff being overpaid due to 'fobbed in' time records.
-
Investigation into time record alterations
The claimant's line manager noted he was overriding the system without authority and changed it back, leading to an investigation.
-
Dismissal for gross misconduct
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, related to altering staff time records.
-
Case management hearing before EJ Joffe
Claims and issues were identified; the claimant was ordered to produce a witness statement.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Goodman
The claimant withdrew the religion discrimination claim; the unlawful deductions claim was struck out; an unless order was made for witness statement; a deposit order of £300 was made.
-
Deposit order sent to claimant
The order requiring payment of £300 by a specified date was sent to the claimant.
-
Reconsideration refused
The claimant's request for reconsideration of the deposit order was refused.
-
Final strike-out judgment
The claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and detriment for protected disclosures were struck out due to non-payment of the deposit.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claimant's claims for failing to comply with a deposit order and an unless order, and whether the unlawful deductions claim from 2012 should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's remaining claims.
- The claim of unlawful deductions from wages (dating back to 2012) was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and detriment for protected disclosures were struck out because the claimant failed to pay a deposit order of £300, which was made on 16 June 2022 and remained unpaid.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out before any substantive hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Deposit orders must be paid by the deadline; failure to do so can result in the entire claim being struck out.
- Claims that are significantly out of time or have no reasonable prospect of success may be struck out at an early stage.
- Complying with tribunal orders, such as providing a witness statement, is essential to keep a claim alive.
- Making protected disclosures does not automatically protect a claim from being struck out for procedural failures.
A case about procedural compliance
This case shows how important it is for claimants to follow tribunal orders, even when they feel their case has merit. The former employee had worked for Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd for many years before being dismissed for gross misconduct in May 2021. He alleged that his dismissal was unfair and that he had suffered detriment for making protected disclosures about an insurance claim, mask-wearing, and staff overpayments.
However, the tribunal never reached a decision on the merits. At a preliminary hearing in June 2022, the tribunal made a deposit order of £300 because the claims had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was also ordered to provide a witness statement by 19 July 2022. He did not pay the deposit, and his request for reconsideration was refused. As a result, the claims were struck out.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have preserved his case by paying the £300 deposit or applying for a variation of the order if he had financial difficulties. He also failed to comply with the unless order for a witness statement. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not cooperated with preparation for the final hearing and had not provided a statement despite being reminded. Engaging with the process and seeking advice earlier might have avoided the strike-out.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals have powers to manage cases strictly. Claimants who do not comply with orders risk having their claims struck out, regardless of the underlying strength of their case. The unlawful deductions claim from 2012 was also struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, illustrating that very old claims are unlikely to succeed. For anyone considering bringing a claim, it is vital to follow tribunal directions and pay any deposit orders on time.
Similar cases
Race and religion discrimination claims struck out as out of time and lacking merit
A tribunal struck out a former technician's race and religion discrimination claims as out of time and without reasonable prospects. A deposit order was made for a constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Parkinson's and technical issues: tribunal extends time for unfair dismissal claim
A university academic with Parkinson's disease was allowed to pursue her unfair dismissal claim 10 days late after the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to file on time due to her disability and IT problems.
Former IT professional's discrimination claim struck out after tampering with evidence
A tribunal struck out a former JP Morgan employee's discrimination claim after he inserted a poem into disclosed documents and sent the tampered version to the tribunal. Most allegations were also dismissed as out of time.
Claim dismissed after failing to comply with Unless Order: a cautionary tale
A former employee's claims for constructive dismissal, disability discrimination and protected disclosure detriment were struck out after she failed to comply with an Unless Order requiring further details of her complaints.