Case 6009082/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Vijay Ramaswamy v Ernst & Young Global Limited ('EYGM'), and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009082/2025
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Vijay Ramaswamy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the consolidated claims in their entirety on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The main reason was territorial jurisdiction: Mr Ramaswamy was working in India for an Indian LLP, and the tribunal found no sufficient connection with the UK or with the two UK-based respondents named in the claims.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been employed by either respondent. It noted documents indicating employment by EY Global Delivery Services India LLP, with work in Bangalore or Pune, salary paid in rupees, and Indian tax treatment. Claims such as unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay, unlawful deductions and redundancy pay could only be brought against an employer.
The tribunal further considered time limits. The first claim was brought in March 2025 in relation to a December 2021 dismissal, and later claims included job applications dating back to 2012. The tribunal considered the delays substantial and concluded that the prospects of obtaining an extension of time were negligible.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims were struck out in their entirety as having no reasonable prospect of success, principally on territorial jurisdiction grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies breach of contract among the complaints that could only be brought against an employer and states that the claims were struck out in their entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to failure to pay holiday pay and states that the claims were struck out in their entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment identifies unlawful deduction from wages among the complaints and states that the claims were struck out in their entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment identifies a statutory redundancy payment complaint and states that the claims were struck out in their entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to job applications allegedly turned down on grounds including race and states that the claims were struck out in their entirety. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure rule 38
- s.204 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250
- British Council v Jeffery [2019] ICR 929
- sufficient connection question
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.