Case 2305310/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Arulanthranan v Mr Aravinth Sivasithamparam and Mrs Karthika Aravinth trading as Jet Well Hall Service Station. — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305310/2019
- Decision date
- 30 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Arulanthranan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the telephone case management hearing on 30 April 2020, neither party attended and the respondents had failed to file a response in time or at all. The tribunal therefore issued a Rule 21 judgment and adjudged the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and underpayment of wages under the National Minimum Wages Regulations and section 13 of the Employment Rights Act to be well-founded.
The judgment did not determine remedy. Instead, it directed the claimant to notify the respondents and the tribunal by 22 May 2020 of the specific amounts claimed for each head of claim and the basis of calculation, so that a further judgment on remedies could be made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment after the respondents failed to file a response in time or at all; remedy was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment treats notice pay as a breach of contract head of claim and finds it well-founded; remedy was left for a further judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records underpayment of wages under the National Minimum Wages Regulations and section 13 of the Employment Rights Act as a well-founded claim; remedy was not assessed in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.