Case 2303180/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Berthet v Romelu Lukaku Bolingoli — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303180/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Berthet
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Ms M Berthet against Romelu Lukaku Bolingoli. By letter dated 18 October 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out because she did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptional circumstances exempting that requirement were identified.
The claimant did not make sufficient representations and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. The judgment records no substantive liability findings on dismissal itself and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and did not identify any exceptional circumstances exempting the service requirement. The claimant also did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out opportunity letter dated 18 October 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 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.