D N Dassanayake v Jaguar Resources and Capital: 6022209/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is wellfounded.[2]The respondent shall pay the claimant £2,307.00 as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. JUDGMENT and reasons having been given orally on 3 December 2025 and written reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 60(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the following reasons are provided: INTRODUCTION AND CLAIM[1]The claimant worked for the respondent as a finance manager from 23 January 2025 to 6 February 2025. Early conciliation took place between 26 April 2025 and 7 June 2025. The claim form was presented on 14 June 2025. By way of her claim form, the claimant claims breach of contract and the amount of £2,307.00 in damages. The respondent contends that the claimant is not entitled to notice pay as she was dismissed summarily for gross misconduct. HEARING[2]The hearing was a remote public hearing, conducted using the cloud video platform (CVP). The parties agreed to the hearing being conducted in this way. The hearing had a time allocation of 2 hours.[3]There was no hearing bundle provided to me but I had access to the claim form, response form and documents provided by each party including a copy claimant’s CV with handwritten comments on it referred to as ‘the interview notes’, copy claimant’s contract of employment, email correspondence including an email dated 18 February 2025 referring to oral dismissal on 6 February 2025.[4]Neither party provided any written witness statement. Further to discussion, the parties agreed that the claimant and Abhisek Parekh, respondent employee who interviewed the claimant, would give evidence and be questioned by the other side. This was a short hearing and it was consistent with the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly including dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate, avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in proceedings.[5]Having heard evidence and submissions, I gave oral decision and reasons at the hearing on 3 December 2025. The judgment was sent to the parties on 11 December 2025. By way of email on 12 December 2025, the respondent requested written reasons which are hereby provided. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS[6]I reached relevant findings of fact applying the balance of probabilities standard of proof.[7]The claimant claims breach of contract in that she was dismissed without notice on 6 February 2025 and her contract entitles her to two weeks’ notice or pay in lieu of notice. The claimant claims £2,307 as damages on the basis this is representative of two weeks’ gross pay. The respondent did not raise issue with the amount claimed as representing two weeks’ gross pay.[8]Where a claim for breach of contract arises or is outstanding on termination of employment, proceedings for damages may be brought before the Tribunal.[9]The claimant relies on clause 2.3 of her contract which provides for a probationary period of 3 months during which ‘employment may be terminated by either party giving to the other 2 weeks’ written notice at any time, or in the case of the Company by making a payment in lieu of notice.’[10]The respondent dismissed the claimant orally on 6 February 2025 and an email dated 18 February 2025 records the dismissal as for gross misconduct on the basis of ‘concealing your requirement of sponsorship and lying about it when asked in interview process’.[11]The claimant accepts in evidence that she was asked about sponsorship requirements at interview. The claimant’s evidence was that she said she had a post study work visa expiring in May and this would turn into a skilled worker visa.[12]I asked questions of the claimant to clarify her evidence because of references made by her during cross-examination about her husband’s circumstances and a plan for him to secure sponsorship for a visa on which she would be a dependent. The claimant told me that what she had meant at interview with the respondent when she referred to the skilled worker visa was that she would be a dependent on her husband’s skilled worker visa.[13]The claimant said she did not suggest at interview she had any requirement for sponsorship from the respondent.[14]Mr Parekh gave evidence that he did not recall if the claimant had said at interview that her visa would expire in May. The respondent did know at the interview that the claimant had a visa. The interview notes record ‘Work Visa- Working towards skilled visa No sponsorship requirements.’ I find the respondent had knowledge that the claimant was on a time-limited visa and continued ability to work was contingent on that visa and a further visa.[15]The claimant gave evidence that the respondent was keen to onboard her. Mr Parekh said they wanted her to join as soon as possible and understood there was no sponsorship need. Mr Parekh said that the HR was away and checks on right to work usually take 4 weeks.[16]The respondent offered the claimant a job on the assumed basis that she had a visa and right to work as no checks were conducted at interview stage or before making the offer of employment. I accept that the offer was also made from the respondent’s perspective on the respondent’s understanding that the claimant did not have any sponsorship requirement. I find the respondent was keen for the claimant to start work notwithstanding the information it had as to her time-limited and contingent visa status.[17]The respondent sent the claimant a contract of employment which was signed by the claimant on 22 January 2025 with a start date of 23 January 2025. The claimant commenced employment.[18]On 6 February 2025, the claimant approached the respondent, Mr Parekh, and asked if the respondent could sponsor her. The claimant referred to having been made another job offer which included sponsorship. The respondent says that the claimant wanted and pressed for an immediate decision. The claimant and Mr Parekh went to have a discussion with the respondent’s owner. This discussion resulted in the claimant’s summary dismissal.[19]The respondent’s view was that the changing circumstances did not stack up in the context of the sponsorship questions at interview and given the short period of time since the interview.[20]I consider that the claimant could have provided more information at interview. I had to ask questions to clarify what she meant by referring to ‘turning into a skilled worker visa’ given references to her husband’s immigration status. However, it was clear that the respondent knew the claimant was on a time limited visa. The respondent did not carry out any checks or explore the position further either at interview, before offering the claimant employment or before concluding the contract of employment with the claimant. The respondent was keen for the claimant to start work on this basis.[21]I note that in signing the contract the claimant was providing a warranty. Clause 3.2. sets out ‘The Employee warrants that they are legally entitled to work in the United Kingdom without any additional approvals and will notify the Company immediately if they cease to be so entitled during the course of their employment.’ The claimant did notify on 6 February 2025 that her circumstances had changed. Her circumstances were always contingent given she was on a visa and the respondent was aware of this. When the claimant was confronted with the clear realisation as to how contingent and precarious her circumstances were given her husband’s work had refused to sponsor him and as such she would not have the option of being a dependent on his visa and her own visa expired in May, she communicated the position to the respondent. I acknowledge that the proximity in time between the interview and the information provided on 6 February 2025 reasonably gives rise to inferences as to how forthcoming the claimant had therefore been at interview.[22]The issue is whether the circumstances entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice or any pay in lieu of notice under the contract of employment. I note that the evidence available to me did not include any copy of the claimant’s visa. The circumstances are curious in that no visa was ever checked or seen by the respondent either. I reflected on the circumstances and was concerned that it would be unconscionable if either party could benefit from any illegality namely if the claimant did not have the requisite right to work or the respondent had failed to carry out any required right to work checks. However, the issue before me in the tribunal is an issue of employment law to be determined on the evidence available to me.[23]The respondent accepted at interview the claimant had a visa. The issue for the respondent was the need for sponsorship in future and that was the stated basis of the dismissal given the respondent’s view the claimant lied at interview about sponsorship. At the time of the interview the claimant told the respondent her circumstances and that she had no sponsorship requirement at that time and the respondent knew she was on a time limited visa and planned to switch even if the respondent did not know this might be as soon as May.[24]I find that the claimant answered as to her circumstances at interview as they then were. I acknowledge that the respondent may have had the impression that the claimant was available for work for a longer period. The claimant was then forthcoming on 6 February 2025 when her hopes that her husband would secure sponsorship had fallen away. She turned first to her new employers. I accept the respondent’s evidence and that this conversation may have been fraught or pressured. At this stage, the claimant’s visa circumstances were still as they were at the interview in that she was on a time-limited visa although she was now requesting the respondent’s sponsorship and indicating she had other work options. The claimant might have left for another job giving notice. The respondent did not want to act as a sponsor but could have continued to employ the claimant or given notice in accordance with the contract to end the employment at that stage.[25]In these circumstances in light of the contractual provisions, I consider that the claimant did not engage in gross misconduct or conduct which breached any provision of the contract entitling summary dismissal. The claimant was entitled to be dismissed on notice or with pay in lieu of notice in accordance with the contract.[26]My judgment is accordingly that the claim for breach of contract is wellfounded. Approved by: Judge RE Peer 12 January 2026