Cases6007676/2025

Claimant v Le Creuset

2 July 2025Before Employment Judge Burgeon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim struck out because claimant did not have two years continuous employment as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's opportunity to make representations why the claim should not be struck out.

Facts

Miss Karmalkar brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Le Creuset. The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 12 March 2025 indicating that she appeared not to have the required two years continuous employment under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and gave her an opportunity to make representations as to why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant failed to respond or make any sufficient representations.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the claimant did not have the required two years continuous employment and failed to respond to the tribunal's letter giving her an opportunity to make representations. The scheduled hearing dates of 28-29 May 2026 were cancelled.

Practical note

Claimants must have two years continuous employment to bring unfair dismissal claims unless specific exceptions apply, and must respond to tribunal correspondence when given an opportunity to make representations to avoid strike out.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.108

Case details

Case number
6007676/2025
Decision date
2 July 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No