Case 6007676/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Karmalkar v Le Creuset — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007676/2025
- Decision date
- 2 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Karmalkar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Karmalkar brought an unfair dismissal claim against Le Creuset. The tribunal recorded that, by letter dated 12 March 2025, it gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, claimants are not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have been employed for two years or more, subject to specified exceptions that did not seem to apply on the face of the case.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, explaining why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No merits determination was made.
The hearing listed for 28 May 2026 and 29 May 2026 did not take place as a result of the strike-out order.
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 by letter dated 12 March 2025 to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to make sufficient representations. | 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.