Deposit orders and strike-out: what happens when a claimant fails to pay
A manager with 5 years' service had multiple discrimination and unfair dismissal claims struck out after failing to pay deposit orders totalling £125 per claim. The tribunal found some claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Manager in Learning Disability Services from 21 April 2015 to 22 December 2020.
- She was dismissed on grounds of redundancy.
- The claimant presented two claims to the Tribunal on 14 December 2020 and 12 April 2021.
- The respondent applied to strike out or for deposit orders on several claims.
- The claimant failed to pay deposit orders ordered on 26 October 2022 and 19 January 2023.
- As a result, certain claims were struck out under rule 39(4).
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Manager in Learning Disability Services.
-
Protected conversation
A conversation occurred regarding a settlement agreement, later ruled as a protected conversation.
-
First claim presented
Claimant presented her first claim to the Tribunal.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy.
-
Second claim presented
Claimant presented her second claim to the Tribunal.
-
Preliminary Hearing before Judge Welch
Order for an Open Preliminary Hearing was made.
-
Preliminary Hearing before Judge Mason
Dealt with admissibility of protected conversation.
-
Preliminary Hearing before Judge Moore
Strike out/deposit order applications heard; deposit orders made for some claims.
-
Preliminary Hearing before Judge Allen
Further strike out/deposit order applications; deposit orders made; claims struck out for non-payment.
-
Final judgment
Remaining claims struck out for non-payment of deposits.
The legal issue
Whether certain claims by a former manager should be struck out or subject to deposit orders because they had little reasonable prospect of success, and whether claims should be struck out for failure to pay those deposits.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out several claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect disability discrimination after the claimant failed to pay deposit orders. Other claims, including those under sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety detriments) and breach of contract, were allowed to proceed.
- The claimant had presented two claims covering 19 causes of action, which were narrowed down.
- Deposit orders of £125 per claim were imposed for certain reasonable adjustment and indirect discrimination claims.
- The claimant did not pay the deposits, leading to strike-out under rule 39(4).
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Deposit orders are a tool tribunals use to filter out weak claims – if you receive one, you must pay it or your claim will be struck out.
- Having a large number of claims can work against you if the tribunal sees some as having little prospect of success.
- If you are representing yourself, it is vital to understand and comply with tribunal orders, including payment deadlines.
- Claims that survive a strike-out application (like health and safety detriment) can still proceed, so not all is lost.
This case shows how employment tribunals manage claims that appear to have little chance of success. The claimant, a manager in learning disability services, brought two claims against Guideposts Trust Limited after her redundancy dismissal. She raised 19 separate causes of action, ranging from disability discrimination to unfair dismissal.
At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal examined each claim to decide whether it should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. A deposit order requires the claimant to pay a sum (here £125 per claim) as a condition of continuing. The tribunal found that some claims – including certain allegations of failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect disability discrimination – had little reasonable prospect of success and imposed deposit orders.
The claimant did not pay the deposits. As a result, those claims were automatically struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules. This is a strict rule: non-payment means the claim is gone, regardless of its merits. Other claims, such as those for health and safety detriments and breach of contract, were allowed to proceed because they had a reasonable prospect of success.
For anyone considering bringing a claim, this case highlights the importance of focusing on strong, well-evidenced allegations. A scattergun approach with many weak claims can lead to deposit orders and strike-outs. It also underscores the need to comply with tribunal orders – failing to pay a deposit is fatal to the affected claims. The tribunal's role is to ensure only claims with a real chance of success go to a full hearing, and deposit orders are a key part of that filtering process.
Similar cases
Spray operative with anxiety and depression: strike-out of reasonable adjustments claim refused
A tribunal refused to strike out a reasonable adjustments claim brought by a spray operative with mixed anxiety and depression, despite the employer arguing the claim had no reasonable prospects. The employer had already conceded unfair dismissal.
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.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
Clinical director's disability claim dismissed: employer unaware of hypothyroidism
A veterinary surgeon who claimed disability discrimination over her dismissal lost her case because her employer did not know and could not reasonably have known she was disabled due to hypothyroidism.