Case 6023453/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Parthasarathy v Jumar Solutions Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023453/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leverton Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Parthasarathy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 26 September 2025 at Bristol by CVP video before Employment Judge Leverton. The judgment records that Jumar Technology Limited was added to the proceedings as a second respondent under rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a contract of employment with either respondent at the relevant time. On that basis, the complaint of breach of contract under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) England and Wales Order 1994 was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Jumar Technology Limited was added as a second respondent under rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found the claimant did not have a contract of employment with either respondent at the relevant time, so the breach of contract complaint under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) England and Wales Order 1994 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) England and Wales Order 1994
- rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.