Cases6009082/2025

Claimant v Ernst & Young Global Limited

28 November 2025Before Employment Judge E FowellCroydonremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant was not employed by either UK-based respondent but by EY Global Delivery Services India LLP in India. Claim was also significantly out of time, filed in March 2025 for a December 2021 dismissal. Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction as claimant worked in India under Indian law with no sufficient connection to the UK.

Breach of Contractstruck out

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Can only be brought against an employer. Respondents were not the claimant's employer; his employer was an Indian-based LLP. No contractual relationship existed with the named respondents.

Holiday Paystruck out

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Such claims can only be brought against an employer. The named UK respondents were not the claimant's employer and there was no territorial jurisdiction as employment was in India under Indian law.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Only actionable against an employer. The claimant's employer was based in India, not the UK respondents, and the tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction over employment relationships based entirely in India.

Redundancy Paystruck out

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Can only be claimed against an employer. The UK respondents were not the employer and there was insufficient connection to UK jurisdiction.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Claims related to job applications made to various Ernst & Young entities, predominantly in Japan, between 2012 and 2024. All were significantly out of time (earliest by over a decade), not against the named UK respondents, and fell outside the tribunal's territorial jurisdiction. No sufficient connection to Great Britain was established.

Direct Discrimination(religion)struck out

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Claims related to job applications to Ernst & Young entities, primarily in Japan, dating from 2012 onwards. All were well outside the three-month time limit, not against the named respondents, and outside territorial jurisdiction.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Claims concerning job applications to various Ernst & Young entities abroad, mainly in Japan, from 2012 onwards. All significantly out of time, not properly directed at the named UK respondents, and outside the tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.

Facts

Mr Ramaswamy was employed by EY Global Delivery Services India LLP in Bangalore from June 2021 until his dismissal in December 2021. He subsequently brought claims in the UK against Ernst & Young Global Limited and Ernst & Young LLP (UK entities), arguing that because Ernst & Young operates globally with a common code of conduct, he could pursue claims in the UK. His claims included unfair dismissal, discrimination, and various wage-related matters, some relating to job applications made to Ernst & Young entities (primarily in Japan) dating back to 2012.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was not employed by the UK respondents but by an Indian entity, working in India under Indian law. The tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction as there was no sufficient connection with Great Britain. Additionally, the claims were significantly out of time, with the most recent events in 2021 and earlier claims dating back over a decade. The fact that Ernst & Young operates globally does not mean separate legal entities within the group can be sued interchangeably.

Practical note

A claimant cannot bring claims in the UK against a UK-based member of a global corporate group when employed by a separate foreign subsidiary with no material connection to Great Britain, regardless of common branding or codes of conduct.

Legal authorities cited

Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250The British Council v Jeffrey [2019] ICR 929

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure rule 38ERA 1996 s.204

Case details

Case number
6009082/2025
Decision date
28 November 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Service
6 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No