Case 3310522/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v R Karnam v Nahgas Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310522/2023
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the joined proceedings under case numbers 3310522/2023 and 3310523/2023 brought by Mr N Sapkota and Mr V R Karnam against Nahgas Ltd (in compulsory liquidation). It recorded that the claims were struck out.
The reason given was that the respondent company was in compulsory liquidation and the permission of the court had not been obtained for the proceedings to continue, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986. The tribunal also noted that on 29 September 2025 it had given the claimants 14 days to provide written reasons why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued, but they failed to give an acceptable reason.
No substantive findings on liability were made and no remedy was awarded. The judgment therefore records a procedural strike-out only.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing category; the judgment itself only records that the claims were struck out. The reason given was that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and court permission had not been obtained. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing category; the judgment itself only records that the claims were struck out. The reason given was that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and court permission had not been obtained. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing category; the judgment itself only records that the claims were struck out. The reason given was that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and court permission had not been obtained. | Struck out | — | — |
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.