Mr M Arulampalam (Sometimes Known as M Isshani) and Sharjana Ltd (Dismissed as Party)

Case Summary

The claimant succeeded in claims of direct disability discrimination and unfavourable treatment arising from disability against the first respondent following a TUPE transfer. The claims against the second respondent were dismissed. The tribunal awarded compensation for past and future financial losses, injury to feelings, and a statutory payment for failure to provide employment particulars.

The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, anxiety and depression, and that the complaints of direct disability discrimination and unfavourable treatment arising from disability were well-founded. The failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. The respondent was in breach of its duty to provide written employment particulars, justifying an award of four weeks' gross pay.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Employment status and TUPE transfer
• •Disability status under Equality Act 2010
• •Direct disability discrimination
• •Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability
• •Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability
• •Harassment related to disability
• •Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss C Twigg Respondent: (1) Mr Methalathan Arulampalam (sometimes known as Methalathan Isshani) (2) Sharjana Limited (dismissed as party) Heard at: Birmingham (via CVP) On: 18 th of May 2026 Before: Employment Judge Codd REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Hancocks (Croner – Litigation Consultant) JUDGMENT Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Employment Status 1. The claims against the second respondent fail and are dismissed. 2. The claimant was an employee of the first respondent following a TUPE transfer on 10 th of March 2010. The claims against the first respondent can proceed. The following paragraphs relate only to the first respondent. Disability Status 3. At the relevant times the claimant was a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of; Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, anxiety and depression. 4. The complaints of disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment can therefore proceed. Direct discrimination 5. The complaint of direct disability discrimination is well-founded and succeeds. Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability 6. The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability is well-founded and succeeds. Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability 7. The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability is not well-founded and is dismissed. Harassment 8. The complaint of harassment related to disability is not well-founded and is dismissed. Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars 9. When the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written stateme…