Case 2201496/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Radha Sarkar v Parvinder Singh Sethi and and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2201496/2024
- Decision date
- 6 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Radha Sarkar
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Sarkar’s ET1 was accepted on 31 January 2024 and issued on 4 March 2024, but the address provided was that of Briton Solicitors rather than her own address. The respondent’s ET3, received on 29 March 2024, raised the defect. At the 14 May 2024 case management hearing, the claimant confirmed claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, breach of contract under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment, failure to provide an itemised pay statement, unlawful deductions from wages, unpaid holiday pay, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in relation to rest periods, victimisation and harassment. The claimant’s representative accepted that the ET1 should have contained the claimant’s own address.
At the public preliminary hearing on 18 October 2024, the claimant did not attend or give evidence. The tribunal held that Rule 10 required the claimant’s own address on the ET1 and that the omission had not been rectified despite ample opportunity. The judge considered Rule 27 but concluded that dismissal under that rule was not appropriate on the facts, because this was not a case where the tribunal had issued a no-jurisdiction notice. The tribunal instead applied Rule 37(1)(c), the overriding objective in Rule 2, and the approach discussed in Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Maria Clark and Others [2023] EWCA Civ 386, and decided that it was not just to waive the defect.
The claims were struck out in their entirety under Rule 37(1)(c). Because of that decision, the tribunal made no findings on disability or continuity of service. The judgment records that the failure to provide the claimant’s address was a mandatory defect, that no amendment or other attempt to rectify it had been made, and that the seriousness of the non-compliance outweighed the fact that some of the pleaded claims included Equality Act allegations.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out in entirety under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with Rule 10; no merits findings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim pleaded by reference to disability discrimination; struck out in entirety under Rule 37(1)(c). The tribunal did not determine whether the claimant was a disabled person. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim pleaded by reference to the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; struck out under Rule 37(1)(c). | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment; struck out under Rule 37(1)(c). | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a written itemised pay statement; struck out under Rule 37(1)(c). | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages; struck out under Rule 37(1)(c). | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay due; struck out under Rule 37(1)(c). |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 6 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 10 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 27 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 (overriding objective)
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Maria Clark and Others [2023] EWCA Civ 386
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.