Case 3314870/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Sunderrajan v Reinto UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3314870/2019
- Decision date
- 6 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Sunderrajan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge Foxwell on 6 September 2019 in the case of Mr K Sunderrajan v Reinto UK Ltd. The respondent did not appear, and the tribunal made orders on the papers. The claimant succeeded on a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £6,666.67.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,667.67. In a further breach of contract finding, it held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's expenses and ordered payment of £15,555.30. The listed hearing on 5 February 2020 was cancelled. No other findings, legal tests, or remedy components are set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £6,667 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages. | Upheld | — | £2,668 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's expenses in breach of contract and ordered payment of that sum. | Upheld | — | £15,555 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,890
- across all upheld claims
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.