Case 3302389/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Ms K Sivagurunathan — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302389/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Bloom Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Jhordane Njie did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Ms Kanajini Sivagurunathan attended in person and told the tribunal that she was the proprietor of the respondent dental practice. The tribunal amended the respondent’s name from Ms Pamela Michaelee to Ms Kanajini Sivagurunathan because Ms Michaelee was the practice manager and not the employer.
The claimant brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages, saying that she had not been paid in full for her period of employment between 13 December 2021 and 10 January 2022 and that one week’s statutory notice pay had also not been paid. The respondent said that those sums had in fact been paid. Because the claimant was absent and did not argue otherwise, the tribunal dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment treats the case as a claim for unlawful deduction of wages. It records an allegation that the claimant had not been paid in full for work between 13 December 2021 and 10 January 2022, together with an allegation that one week’s statutory notice pay had not been paid. The judgment does not separate those matters into distinct claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.