Tribunal Overturns Deposit Order in Childcare Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a deposit order against a claimant in an indirect discrimination case, finding that the original tribunal erred in its assessment.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Reverses Deposit Order
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in favour of Ms L O Orrego in her appeal against Clean Free Limited, overturning a deposit order previously imposed by the Central London Employment Tribunal. The case, heard on 12 August 2025, centred on a claim of indirect discrimination linked to Ms Orrego's dismissal, which she alleges was due to taking short-notice leave related to childcare responsibilities.
Background of the Case
Ms Orrego, a former spa attendant, claimed she was dismissed after needing to take leave at short notice on three occasions. One instance involved her child contracting chickenpox. She argued that this constituted indirect discrimination under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, as women are statistically more likely to bear childcare responsibilities. The original tribunal ordered Ms Orrego to pay a £50 deposit, deeming her claim to have little reasonable prospect of success.
Key Arguments and Tribunal's Findings
Ms Orrego, represented by Ms C Marcel from the United Voices of the World trade union, argued that the tribunal had failed to construe her particulars of claim as a whole. She contended that the pleadings did assert a link between her short-notice leave for childcare and her dismissal. The EAT agreed, stating that the original employment judge erred in failing to consider the repeated references to the childcare issue within the amended particulars of claim. These references included WhatsApp messages suggesting she needed to find "a mother job".
EAT's Decision and Implications
His Honour Judge Barklem, presiding over the EAT hearing, concluded that there was "some prospect of success" in Ms Orrego's claim. The EAT revoked the deposit order and declined to order a re-hearing. The judge noted that any further amendment to the claim would be at the discretion of the respondent. He expressed a hope that the matter could proceed to a determination on its merits without further delay.
This case highlights the importance of tribunals considering the full context of a claimant's pleadings, particularly in cases involving potential discrimination. It also underscores the need for tribunals to assist unrepresented parties in clarifying their claims, rather than imposing deposit orders based on poorly drafted pleadings. The EAT emphasised that a deposit order should not be used as a shortcut for proper case management such as ordering further particulars or requiring the claim to be amended. It's a win for employees who face potential discrimination because of childcare needs.
Read the entire judgement here: Ms L O Orrego v Clean Free Ltd
