Case 2300981/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Arulpragasam v Leinster Motor Engineering Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300981/2021
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gianferrari Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Arulpragasam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Arulpragasam worked for Leinster Motor Engineering Ltd as a motor technician from 9 March 2013 until dismissal on 10 September 2021. He brought claims about furlough pay, holiday pay, written particulars, minimum wage, unfair dismissal, notice pay and pension rights. The tribunal struck out holiday pay claims before 10 May 2019 under the two-year backstop in s.23(4A) ERA 1996, and refused an amendment to add historic wage underpayments because the new claims were substantive, late and time-barred under the Selkent/Vaughan approach.
The furlough-related unlawful deduction claim failed. The tribunal found that during the pandemic the respondent could operate the furlough scheme within government guidelines, that the claimant had been paid what he was entitled to during the relevant furlough period, and that no 20% top-up was due. The later unlawful deduction claim for wages from November 2020 to dismissal also failed because the claimant had not worked since November 2020, had claimed state benefits, and had no authority to remain absent while expecting pay. The minimum wage complaint failed for lack of evidence.
The holiday-pay claim succeeded in part and the written-particulars complaint succeeded. The order records one holiday-pay period as dismissed and a later period as upheld, with an award of £1,838.95 gross; the reasons calculate 18 days at £102.16 gross per day and refer to a one-day overpayment in the earlier year, so the period labels are not perfectly aligned in the judgment text. The tribunal also found that no written particulars of employment had been provided and awarded two weeks' gross pay, £1,021.64, under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant had absented himself without authorisation for a lengthy period, that this was a potentially fair reason to dismiss, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It also noted there was no formal grievance process or formal investigation, but that did not alter the conclusion. The notice pay claim and the claim for loss of pension rights were also dismissed. The total award ordered was £2,860.59.
Claims and outcomes
10 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for the employer's 20% furlough contribution from June to October 2020; the tribunal found the claimant had been paid what he was entitled to under the furlough arrangement and refused the top-up. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for wages from November 2020 to dismissal; the conclusions section labels the period differently, but the issues and findings refer to the claimant not working from November 2020, having claimed state benefits, and having no authority to remain absent on pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claims for dates before 10 May 2019 were struck out under the two-year backstop in s.23(4A) ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The order records holiday pay between 10 May 2019 and April 2020 as not well founded; the reasons section later discusses the holiday calculation in a way that does not perfectly match the period labels. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The order records holiday pay between April 2020 and 10 May 2021 as well founded and awards a gross sum of £1,838.95; the reasons calculate 18 days at £102.16 gross per day and refer to a one-day overpayment in the earlier year. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,861
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- s.23(4A) ERA 1996 two-year backstop
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd
- King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- s.98 ERA 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.