Case 2306295/2023 · Employment Tribunal
1) Mr Kamagasaby Jegatheeswaren 2) Mrs Santhakala Jegatheeswaren v Samy Investments Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2306295/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1) Mr Kamagasaby Jegatheeswaren 2) Mrs Santhakala Jegatheeswaren
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal declared that the second claimant, Mrs Santhakala Jegatheeswaren, was an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay her £83.36 for one day's pay, subject to the respondent receiving her bank account details.
Also by consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the first claimant, Mr Kamagasaby Jegatheeswaren, notice pay of £514.00, eight days' pay of £890.00, and holiday pay of £95.00 (each subject to tax), subject to provision of his bank details.
The claims of 'ordinary' unfair dismissal were dismissed because the claimants did not have the requisite two years' employment service. The hearing took place at Croydon by CVP on 10 and 11 March 2026 before Employment Judge Liz Ord, with a Tamil interpreter assisting.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claims of 'ordinary' unfair dismissal dismissed because the claimants did not have the requisite 2 years' employment service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | By consent: notice pay of £514.00 (subject to tax) ordered in favour of the first claimant. | Upheld | — | £514 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent: £83.36 (one day's pay) to the second claimant; £890.00 (eight days' pay, subject to tax) to the first claimant. Combined £973.36. | Upheld | — | £973 |
| Holiday pay | By consent: holiday pay of £95.00 (subject to tax) ordered in favour of the first claimant. Listed under Working Time Regulations on gov.uk; classified here as holiday_pay. | Upheld | — | £95 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claims of 'ordinary' unfair dismissal dismissed because the claimants did not have the requisite 2 years' employment service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | By consent: notice pay of £514.00 (subject to tax) ordered in favour of the first claimant. | Upheld | — | £514 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,582
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 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.