Case 6022473/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. V Ramaswamy v Ernst & Young Global Limited ('EYGM'), and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022473/2025
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr. V Ramaswamy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 6 January 2026 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claims appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal referred to an earlier hearing before Judge Fowell on 28 November 2025, with judgment promulgated on 6 January 2026, in which related claims against the same respondents were struck out principally on territorial jurisdiction grounds and because the claimant was not employed by either respondent. The claimant was given until 13 January 2026 to explain why these claims should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but the Tribunal found no adequate reasons had been provided.
Regional Employment Judge Khalil was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claims but does not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claims but does not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claims but does not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment strikes out the claims but does not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claims but does not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claims but does not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claims but does not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.