Case 2203665/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Karie v Lloyds Bank plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203665/2019
- Decision date
- 14 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Karie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Snelson sitting alone, there was no appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Claimant. The Tribunal proceeded after attempts to contact the Claimant's representative by telephone received no response.
The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the Claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service to bring that claim. The Tribunal also corrected the Respondent's name and made case management orders for the remaining proceedings, including further particulars, amended grounds of resistance, an agreed list of issues, schedules of remedy, disclosure, witness statements, and hearing preparation.
The Tribunal observed that the sex discrimination claim might be vulnerable to a strike-out application by reference to Equality Act 2010, s18(7), but stated that it would not be proportionate to consider such an application before the final hearing. No remedy award was made in this judgment; the £1,000 figure appears only in the standard note about possible fines for non-compliance with orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out at the preliminary hearing because the Claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Equality Act 2010, s18(7)
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.