Case 3306656/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Karthick v Mr Ravi Chandran Ponnampalam — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306656/2018
- Decision date
- 4 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Karthick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the respondent's response because Mr Ravi Chandran Ponnampalam failed to comply with the unless order of 26 November 2018. On that basis, the claims brought by Mr N Karthick were upheld without a merits determination.
The order does not set out separate findings on the individual heads of claim or any monetary award. It records that remedy would be determined at a further hearing listed for 4 June 2019, with the hearing time reduced to 2 hours.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records only that the response was struck out and that the claims were upheld; the individual heads of claim are not separated in the text supplied. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records only that the response was struck out and that the claims were upheld; the individual heads of claim are not separated in the text supplied. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Mapped from the listing category 'Working Time Regulations and Written Pay Statement'; the order itself does not break this head down separately. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mapped from the listing category 'National Minimum Wage'; the order itself does not identify a separate statutory basis in the text supplied. | 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.