Case 2206055/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Heard For the v Ms L Veale — 2019
- Case reference
- 2206055/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr D Schofield, Mr D Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Heard For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Indrani Gungadin worked for R&B Management Services Limited as Manager/Company Secretary/Finance Controller from 2009 until she resigned on 15 October 2019. The tribunal found that the monthly £600 paid via IL Consultants into her Mauritian account from around January 2011 to August 2019 was part of her wages for work done for the Respondent, so she was not paid less than Mr Lingden and Mr Cox because of sex. It also found that the alleged May/June 2019 remark that a co-director could marry her because she was a single mother was not made.
On the other sex discrimination and harassment allegations, the tribunal found that Dr Roh did not say that she could get another job easily, did not mishandle any grievance as alleged, and did not make the alleged 'single mother' or 'take maternity leave' remarks on 14 October 2019. Where Dr Roh did email her about a 'trick' and about short-notice absence in September 2019, the tribunal held that those messages were prompted by her apparent attempt to engineer a redundancy payment or early departure and were not related to sex or capable of amounting to harassment. The allegation that he accused her of theft on 15 October 2019 also failed: he asked for explanations about the Rohmir cheques and the account movements, which the tribunal found to be a reasonable investigation.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It accepted that Dr Roh had reasonable grounds to investigate the Respondent's finances after discovering unexplained cash withdrawals and other payments, and found proven unauthorised expenditure totalling £7,428.67, including salary advances, unauthorised overtime, cash withdrawals and Rohmir cheque cashing. The unlawful deduction claim failed because the final October wages and holiday pay were lawfully withheld under clause 5.2 of the contract, and the amounts owed by the Claimant exceeded the sums deducted.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal rejected the alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found Dr Roh had reasonable grounds to investigate the Respondent's finances, did not mishandle any grievance, and that the Claimant's resignation was not in response to any repudiatory breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the alleged sex-related remarks and treatment were mostly not proved. It also held that the pay comparison point did not support an inference of sex discrimination because the monthly £600 paid via IL Consultants formed part of the Claimant's wages. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the alleged conduct was either not proved or, where it occurred, was not related to sex and did not amount to unwanted conduct creating a hostile or offensive environment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Although the Claimant's October wages and holiday pay were not paid, the tribunal held the deductions were authorised by clause 5.2 of the contract and were exceeded by overpayments and unauthorised sums owed to the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Shamoon detriment test
- Madarassy burden of proof
- Hewage approach
- Western Excavating fundamental breach
- Malik trust and confidence
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust questions
- Omilaju final straw
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.