Case 1405111/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Ruth Harris First v Mr Suresh Arithayas Second Respondent: Mrs Kalaiselvi Natarajan — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405111/2023
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yallop REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Ruth Harris First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant's employment transferred to the Second Respondent on 1 May 2023 under the TUPE Regulations 2006, with continuous service from 12 October 1996 to 1 May 2023. It also found that, at the time of dismissal on 14 May 2023, the Claimant worked 23 hours per week, was entitled to 12 weeks' statutory minimum notice, and had not received a written statement of employment particulars from the Second Respondent.
The complaint against the Second Respondent for breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded. By consent, the Second Respondent was ordered to pay £2,185 as damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as post-employment notice pay. The claim for a statutory redundancy payment was also well-founded, and by consent the Second Respondent was ordered to pay £6,118.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Second Respondent had never provided the Claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It awarded an amount equal to two weeks' pay and, by consent, ordered payment of £437. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed.
The claims for a payment in respect of the Claimant's mental health, legal fees of £1,000, and 6 months' earnings were dismissed. All claims against the First Respondent were also dismissed. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £8,740.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim against the Second Respondent was well-founded; by consent the Tribunal ordered £2,185 as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,185 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment claim against the Second Respondent was well-founded; by consent the Tribunal ordered £6,118. | Upheld | — | £6,118 |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars succeeded; the Tribunal awarded two weeks' pay of £437 by consent. | Upheld | — | £437 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claims for a payment in respect of the Claimant's mental health, legal fees of £1,000, and 6 months' earnings were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,740
- across all upheld claims
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.