Case 3311107/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S P Arachchige Kumarasinghe v Express Chef Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311107/2024
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S P Arachchige Kumarasinghe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. It recorded that, by a letter dated 16 May 2025, the claimant was given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 10 April 2025 and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal decided that the claim should be struck out. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the underlying employment claims.
The judgment is brief and procedural only. It does not set out separate findings on the underlying listed categories of unfair dismissal and breach of contract, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate the listed claims; it states that the claim was struck out in full for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 10 April 2025 and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separate the listed claims; it states that the claim was struck out in full for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 10 April 2025 and because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.