Case 3306498/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Sivaraman v Dexra Solutions Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306498/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Sivaraman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment on the claimant's complaint of redundancy payment. The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 30 September 2024 and gave her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the complaint should not be struck out.
The stated bases for possible strike-out were that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success, that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 30 September 2024, and that the complaint had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of redundancy payment. No monetary award was made and no further remedy findings were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | By letter dated 30 September 2024, the Tribunal invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why the redundancy payment complaint should not be struck out on the grounds of no reasonable prospect of success, non-compliance with an order, and lack of active pursuit. The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing, and the complaint was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.