NHS consultant's constructive dismissal claim struck out after failing to pay deposit
A psychiatrist's claim for constructive unfair dismissal against an NHS trust was struck out after she failed to pay a £400 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The claim had previously survived a strike-out application.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #deposit-order
- #strike-out
- #affirmation
- #delay-in-resignation
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 5 May 2022, about six months after the alleged final straw in November 2021.
- The claimant alleged a series of incidents involving colleagues Dr Douglas and Dr Mostafa from June 2020 to July 2022.
- The respondent applied to strike out the claim for no reasonable prospects of success, which was refused at the preliminary hearing.
- The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £400 by 30 March 2023.
- The claimant failed to pay the deposit, resulting in the claim being struck out under rule 39(4).
Timeline
-
First alleged incident with Dr Douglas
Dr Douglas undermined the claimant in a professionals meeting by declining a medication review request and lecturing her.
-
Meeting with Dr Douglas
The claimant met Dr Douglas to discuss the incident; Dr Douglas said he could not promise not to repeat the behaviour.
-
Line manager fails to act
The claimant reported Dr Douglas's behaviour to her line manager Dr Basu, but no action was taken.
-
Dr Douglas blames claimant via email
Dr Douglas unfairly blamed the claimant for his attendance at a community centre to write a prescription.
-
Dr Mostafa intimidates claimant
New line manager Dr Mostafa compared himself to an African rhinoceros and pressured the claimant to take on additional work.
-
Ongoing criticism from Dr Douglas
From May to August 2021, Dr Douglas repeatedly criticised the claimant's facilitation of Balint groups.
-
Dr Douglas recommends training
Dr Douglas made an unsolicited forceful recommendation that the claimant undertake training.
-
Planning meeting with Dr Mostafa
Dr Mostafa rejected the claimant's requests and asked her to take on unsafe on-call duties.
-
Final straw: transfer request denied
Dr Basu denied the claimant's request to move departments; the claimant began looking for other jobs.
-
Claimant resigns
The claimant handed in her resignation with about 12 weeks' notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim should be struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success, and later whether it should be struck out for failure to pay a deposit order.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the respondent's initial application to strike out the claim, finding that the allegations required testing in oral evidence. However, at a subsequent hearing, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £400 as a condition of proceeding. The claimant failed to pay, and the claim was struck out.
- No compensation awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a tribunal orders you to pay a deposit, you must pay it by the deadline or your claim will be automatically struck out.
- Even if your claim survives an initial strike-out application, you may still face a deposit order if the tribunal considers it has weak prospects.
- Representing yourself can be challenging; consider seeking advice from a solicitor or an advice agency before bringing a claim.
- A long delay between the final straw and resignation can weaken a constructive dismissal claim, as it may suggest you accepted the breach.
A promising claim derailed by a procedural misstep
This case illustrates how a potentially arguable constructive dismissal claim can fail not on its merits, but on a procedural technicality. The claimant, an NHS consultant psychiatrist, alleged a series of incidents over two years involving colleagues that she said destroyed the trust and confidence in her employment. The tribunal initially refused to strike out the claim, recognising that the context of professional communications needed to be tested in evidence.
The deposit order that ended the case
Despite surviving the strike-out application, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a £400 deposit by 30 March 2023 as a condition of proceeding. The claimant did not pay, and the claim was struck out under rule 39(4). This is a harsh reminder that tribunal orders must be complied with strictly, regardless of the strength of the underlying case.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, this case highlights two key points. First, delays in resigning after the final straw can be fatal – here, the six-month gap between the alleged final straw and resignation was a significant issue. Second, procedural compliance is essential; failing to pay a deposit, even a modest one, will end your claim. The tribunal's initial refusal to strike out suggests the claim had some merit, but that was not enough to save it.
Similar cases
Hotel night worker's constructive dismissal claim struck out after delay in resigning
A tribunal struck out a constructive unfair dismissal claim from a night team member who waited 2.5 months after the last alleged breach before resigning, finding he had affirmed the contract.
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.
Part-time worker's constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal rejects less favourable treatment allegations
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal over part-time worker rights and national minimum wage issues has had all her claims dismissed by an employment tribunal.
Warehouse operative's indirect discrimination claims over Covid-sceptic beliefs struck out
A warehouse operative who resigned after refusing to comply with face-covering and testing rules had his indirect discrimination and constructive dismissal claims struck out after failing to pay a deposit order.