Case 1303805/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Sangha v GXO Logistics UK Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1303805/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Mensah Tribunal
- Venue
- Birmingham West
- Panel members
- Ms J Keene, Mr S Woodhall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Sangha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant initially withdrew all claims orally except for unfair dismissal and holiday pay on the morning of the first day of a listed five-day hearing. The respondent confirmed that holiday pay had been paid and said evidence of payment had been filed.
At 1.30pm, the parties told the Tribunal that the claimant wished to withdraw all claims and that they had agreed to cover their own costs, described by the respondent's solicitor as a "Drop hands" agreement. The Tribunal discussed the implications with the claimant and was satisfied that he understood he would not be able to resurrect the claims once withdrawn.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed all claims under the proceedings upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn and that all claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the respondent confirmed the claimant had been paid his holiday pay and filed evidence, and that the claimant then withdrew all claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to withdrawal of all claims other than unfair dismissal and holiday pay on the morning of the first hearing day, but does not name those remaining withdrawn claims in the extracted judgment text. The public listing category identifies Public Interest Disclosure. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.