Case 2301572/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Karuppannan v Nigel draper — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301572/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Karuppannan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal only. By letter dated 5 May 2021, it gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out because she did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and no exceptional circumstances exemption was identified.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims continued. No compensatory award, basic award, or other remedy was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out because she did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or any exceptional exemption. The tribunal recorded that no sufficient representations were made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 1996
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.