Home care assistant's race discrimination claim struck out after non-payment of deposit
A tribunal struck out a home care assistant's race discrimination claim after she failed to pay a £1,200 deposit ordered because her allegations had little prospect of success. The case highlights the risks of bringing claims based on immigration status rather than race.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant, a black woman of Ghanaian nationality, worked as a Home Care Assistant from October 2016.
- She went on maternity leave on 12 September 2020 and was due to return on 10 September 2021.
- Her right to work documentation expired on 28 August 2021, and she was in contact with the respondent about her application.
- A Positive Verification Notice confirming her right to work was received on 2 October 2021, but there was a delay in actioning it.
- The claimant submitted a grievance on 5 October 2021 alleging race discrimination and breach of contract.
- She resigned on 29 December 2021 and brought claims of direct race discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal, victimisation, and holiday pay.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a Home Care Assistant.
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant went on maternity leave.
-
Right to work document expired
Claimant's residence permit expired.
-
Scheduled return to work
Claimant was due to return from maternity leave.
-
Meeting about right to work
Meeting held to discuss the claimant's right to work documentation.
-
Positive Verification Notice received
Respondent received PVN confirming claimant's right to work.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a grievance alleging race discrimination and breach of contract.
-
Respondent contacted claimant
Respondent contacted claimant to organise return to work.
-
Grievance meeting
Grievance meeting took place; claimant felt discriminated against due to her Ghanaian nationality.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant signed off sick with work-related stress.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Harding produced an agreed List of Issues.
-
Preliminary hearing on strike out and deposit
Employment Judge Knowles heard applications for strike out and deposit orders.
-
Deposit order made
Employment Judge Knowles ordered a deposit of £50 per allegation (total £1,200) for 24 race discrimination allegations.
-
Strike out judgment
Employment Judge Battisby struck out the claim for non-payment of deposit.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Employment Judge Battisby revoked the strike out and extended time for compliance pending appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's allegations of direct race discrimination had no reasonable prospect of success (strike out) or little reasonable prospect of success (deposit order), given that the alleged treatment related to her immigration status, which is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim outright, but granted a deposit order requiring the claimant to pay £50 per allegation (total £1,200) to proceed with 24 allegations of direct race discrimination. The claimant did not pay the deposit, and the claim was subsequently struck out.
- The tribunal found the allegations had little reasonable prospect of success because they related to the claimant's immigration status, not her race or nationality.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out before a final hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Deposit orders are used to filter out weak claims; failing to pay the deposit results in automatic strike out.
- Claims about immigration status are not the same as race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
- If a tribunal orders a deposit, it is essential to pay it or seek a review before the deadline.
- A lay representative may not be sufficient for complex discrimination claims involving multiple allegations.
A claim that failed before it reached a full hearing
This case shows how a discrimination claim can be derailed by procedural requirements, even before the merits are fully tested. The claimant, a home care assistant of Ghanaian nationality, alleged that her employer, Anchor Hanover Group, treated her unfavourably because of her race when dealing with her right to work documentation. She brought 24 separate allegations of direct race discrimination.
However, at a preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided that these allegations had little reasonable prospect of success. The key issue was that the alleged treatment related to her immigration status — whether she had the right to work — rather than her race or nationality. The tribunal therefore ordered a deposit of £50 per allegation, a total of £1,200, as a condition of proceeding.
What went wrong
The claimant did not pay the deposit, and her claim was struck out. She could have avoided this by paying the deposit or seeking a review of the order. The case also highlights the importance of clearly linking alleged treatment to a protected characteristic. Here, the tribunal noted that the claimant's own case was that she was treated differently because of her immigration status, which is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering a race discrimination claim, this case is a reminder that the legal basis of the claim matters. Allegations about immigration status, even if they affect someone of a particular nationality, may not amount to direct race discrimination. It also shows that tribunals will use deposit orders to weed out weak claims, and failing to comply can end the case entirely. Seeking legal advice early — and ensuring the claim is properly framed — is essential.
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.
Dismissed over disputed Covid test results: unfair dismissal claim fails but wrongful dismissal succeeds
A former employee who was sacked for alleged dishonesty over a positive Covid-19 test in Cameroon lost his unfair dismissal claim but won £1,536.60 for wrongful dismissal. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally fair but the employer failed to give proper notice.
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.
Flexible working dispute: some discrimination claims survive strike-out
A former Marks and Spencer employee had several claims struck out due to lack of reasonable prospect of success, but race and religion discrimination claims survive subject to small deposits.