Case 6001693/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Marsh v Karro Food Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001693/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Venue
- Hull
- Panel members
- Mr M Taj, Ms J Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Marsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs M Marsh’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that she was unfairly dismissed. It also found that there was a 100% chance she would have been fairly dismissed after a further period of 8 weeks, so any compensation for loss of earnings was capped at 8 weeks. The judgment records that she did not seek reinstatement or re-engagement.
The complaints of harassment related to sex and religious belief were found not well-founded and were dismissed. The judgment does not set out a quantified remedy figure on this page; instead, it directs the parties to try to agree compensation and, if they cannot, to write to the tribunal by 20 September 2024 with dates they are not available for a hearing to determine compensation up to 31 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers collectively to complaints of harassment related to sex and religious belief; this entry isolates the sex-related aspect. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers collectively to complaints of harassment related to sex and religious belief; this entry isolates the religion or belief aspect. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.