Case 2201582/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Kerrar v Chanel Ltd and others — 2018
- Case reference
- 2201582/2018
- Decision date
- 18 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Isaacson Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Kerrar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with a preliminary application by the respondents to strike out the claimant's second to fourth claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, relying on abuse of process and the rule in Henderson v Henderson. It accepted the claimant's evidence that she was in shock and trauma when first instructed, was not sleeping or eating well, barely left her house, and was only able to raise incidents and claims as they came back to her over a period of weeks. The Tribunal found that she was not deliberately presenting matters on a piecemeal basis.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondents' application under rule 37 to strike out the claimant's 2nd to 4th claims on the basis of abuse of process / Henderson v Henderson was refused. The judgment also recorded that the Tribunal was not persuaded by the respondents' jurisdiction argument on the second claim and added Chanel Ltd as second respondent under rule 34. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Henderson v Henderson
- Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.