Case 2414534/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Shasta Ruparelia v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414534/2019
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Shasta Ruparelia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to the claims. On the information before the Employment Judge, the Tribunal issued judgment under Rule 21 without a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 of TULRCA 1992 before proposed redundancy dismissals took effect at its Preston establishment. It made a protective award for the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019, subject to the recoupment regulations.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and breached contract by failing to pay expenses incurred. It awarded £3,686.67 for wages, £3,478.69 for notice damages, and £881.51 for expenses.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 TULRCA 1992 before proposed redundancy dismissals. The award was remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019, but the judgment did not state a quantified amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages; gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,687 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,479 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract by failing to pay expenses incurred. | Upheld | — | £882 |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Sections 189(1)(d), (2), (3) and (4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.